Bombay High Court
Parvesh F. Mehra vs Eagle Theatres And Ors on 5 February, 2019
Author: G. S. Patel
Bench: G.S. Patel
902-NMS628-11.DOC
Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 628 OF 2011
IN
SUIT NO. 942 OF 2010
Parvesh F Mehra ...Plaintif
Versus
Eagle Theatres & Ors ...Defendants
Mr PA Sarwankar, i/b Sarwankar & Company, for the Plaintiff.
Mr Mohan Jayakar, with Mr Abhay Dhadiwal, i/b Jayakar &
Partners, for Defendants Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6 to 15.
Mrs Renu Parekh, for Defendants Nos. 16 & 17.
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J
DATED: 5th February 2019
PC:-
1.Pursuant to the order passed yesterday, the Registry has placed a detailed report before me. This is taken on file.
2. In paragraph 2 of this report dated 4th February 2019, the Prothonotary and Senior Master clearly states with full particulars that the 10 instruments, of which three are cashier's or pay orders and seven are demand drafts, have all been revalidated. Six of these pay orders/demand drafts were drawn on 15th November 2018, two were of 14th November 2018, one was of 20th November 2018 and Page 1 of 5 5th February 2019 ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:12:35 ::: 902-NMS628-11.DOC the last was of 27th November 2018. The ones dated 15th November 2018 have been revalidated till 14th February 2019. The ones of 14th November 2018 are now valid till 13th February 2019. The demand drafts dated 20th November 2018 and 27th November 2018 are revalidated to 19th February 2019 and 26th February 2019. The report also states in paragraph 2 that these pay orders/demand drafts were renewed periodically. I noted yesterday the statement made by the Plaintif in the note that he tendered, and this was also reflected in what he said to me yesterday, that all 10 instruments were, in his words, "time barred" on 31st October 2018 and had not been renewed thereafter. The note that he tendered yesterday is annexed to the Prothonotary and Senior Master's report.
3. The statement made by the Plaintif in regard to the revalidation of these 10 instruments is entirely incorrect, and this is now a matter of record.
4. Today, the Plaintif states that he was unaware of the renewal. That statement is also untrue. There is an order of the Prothonotary and Senior Master of 21st November 2018. The Plaintif was present in person at that time. The order notes that a praecipe dated 19th November 2018 along with eight revalidated pay orders/demand drafts as mentioned in that praecipe was tendered by the opposing advocates. The praecipe was taken on file and the pay orders/demand drafts were received by the Prothonotary & Senior Master. There was a further discussion that day about the draft consent terms, and the matter was then placed on 4th December 2018 at 4.00 pm for approval of these draft terms. The Page 2 of 5 5th February 2019 ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:12:35 ::: 902-NMS628-11.DOC Plaintif could not have been unaware of the revalidation of these instruments.
5. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Prothonotary and Senior Master's report of 4th February 2019 are important. This is how they read:
"3. I respectfully further submit that in pursuance of direction given by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide Order dated 25th September 2018, the undersigned has conducted meetings with the parties on 5th October, 8th October, 16th October and 21st November, 2018. Thereafter, Mr Parvesh Mehra vide his letter dated 4th October 2018 submitted Consent Terms in present Suit along with other drafts of documents. Parties were at dispute regarding contents of drafts, which are to be submitted as per direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 25th September 2018. The undersigned vide Order dated 4th December 2018 had settled all drafts and has directed the parties to place said Consent Terms before the Hon'ble Court and also given other directions in the matter. However, till date they have not collected said Consent Terms from this office. Said Order dated 4th December 2018 is annexed herewith for Your Honour's kind perusal at Exhibit "A".
4. I respectfully further submit that since Parvesh Mehra has not yet complied with direction in respect of Schedule Nos. I, II, IV, V, VI and VII mentioned on page no.6 of the Order dated 25th September 2018 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this office is in process of submitting report before the Hon'ble Apex Court."
(Emphasis added) Page 3 of 5 5th February 2019 ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:12:35 ::: 902-NMS628-11.DOC
6. From this it is apparent that the Prothonotary and Senior Master has, in accordance with the Supreme Court's directions, settled all draft terms and has directed the parties to place these before the Court. Those Consent Terms have still not been collected from the Registry. Paragraph 4 makes it clear that it is the Plaintif who has not complied with the directions in respect of Schedule Nos. (i), (ii), (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii) as mentioned at page 6 of the Supreme Court order of 25th September 2018. I note that the Registry is separately placing a report before the Supreme Court.
7. As the position stands today, all 10 instruments have been revalidated. It is for the Plaintif to obtain appropriate orders from the Supreme Court. In the meantime, full efect must be given to the Supreme Court order of 25th September 2018. Whatever may be the Plaintif's views, it is not open to the registry or this court to do otherwise or to delay implementation of that order, let alone to decline compliance. If the draft Consent Terms are settled by the Prothonotary and Senior Master, the parties are required to collect these and to submit them to Court in compliance with the direction
(iii) at page 6 of the Supreme Court order. Those Consent Terms are required to be filed in this Suit. There is today no stay on operation of that clause. The parties will collect the Consent Terms which I am told have been signed by all and will remain present in Court on 11th February 2019. If the parties have not done so by that time, an officer of the Registry will remain present with the Consent Terms and I am making it clear that I propose to pass an order in accordance with the Supreme Court directions set out above on that day.
Page 4 of 55th February 2019 ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:12:35 ::: 902-NMS628-11.DOC
8. Defendants Nos. 3 and 5 are personally present in Court.
9. Lastly, I must note that the Plaintif seems to believe that he is not bound by anything. The Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules do not bind him. The Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ("CPC") does not apply to him and even the Supreme Court orders are apparently not binding on him, let alone the orders of this Court. I note this because despite having engaged an Advocate who is present, the Plaintif claims to be entitled to argue his cause in person. He is not entitled to do so, and our Original Side Rules are clear in that behalf. The learned Advocate for the Plaintif is in a particularly unenviable situation today because while his client, the Plaintif, is present, the learned Advocate himself has no instructions, and the Plaintif insists on addressing the Court himself. I am making it clear that I will not permit this. There are no special rules for this (or any other) Plaintif.
10. At this stage, Mr Sarwankar, the learned Advocate for the Plaintif submits that he may be allowed to be discharged immediately rather than following the lengthy procedure in our Rules. That procedure requires notice to be given to the litigant. This is evidently unnecessary since the Plaintif is present in Court. The Advocate for the Plaintif is discharged.
(G. S. PATEL, J) Page 5 of 5 5th February 2019 ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:12:35 :::