HC: Dishonest litigants colluding with lawyers for favourable orders
The court dismissed a notice of motion filed by the applicant and imposed a cost of Rs 10 lakh to be paid to the opposite party.
Bombay High Court (Express Photo by Pradeep Kocharekar/Files)
The Bombay High Court recently, while hearing civil suit, came down heavily on both lawyers and litigants for “going to any dishonest lengths” to obtain favourable orders. The court said, “blatantly unethical and malafide behaviour of litigants should be dealt with an iron hand of the judiciary with zero tolerance.” The court dismissed a notice of motion filed by the applicant and imposed a cost of Rs 10 lakh to be paid to the opposite party.
The court was hearing a suit filed by Anand Agarwal and his wife Pramila Agarwal, residents of south Mumbai, who alleged they have been cheated by builder Vilas Goakar and four others by collecting Rs 9.5 crore and allotting flats in Samarth Heights, a building in Dadar, without disclosing that the flats were already sold to third parties. The Agarwals were represented by advocate Sharan Jagtiani. Gaokar had filed a notice of motion after the civil suit filed in 2017 had been heard on several occasions. Gaonkar had sought that orders dated from April 26, 2017 to October 10, 2017, passed by the same court, be rendered “void ab initio” vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record and that the same should be recalled,” Gaokar alleged that all the orders passed from 26th April, 2017 to 10th October, 2017, were without his consent.
Justice SJ Kathawalla noted that Gaokar had throughout the hearing of the case, remained present and appeared before the court with his counsel as well as the advocate on record. He took the assistance of the court in resolving his issues pertaining to the suit, gave undertakings in pursuance of it, obtained consent orders and also acted in consonance with the same, the court noted.
However, Gaokar breached one of the undertakings given by him and “craftily and quickly”changed his advocates and briefed lawyer Mathew Nedumparra, who in turn advised him to file this notice of motion urging the court to recall earlier orders. Justice Kathawalla observed, “it is being observed that there is, amongst some litigants and their advocates, virtually no fear or hesitation in making false statements and misrepresentations before the court, which should under any and all circumstances be dealt with an iron hand of the judiciary with zero tolerance for such blatantly unethical and malafide behaviour.”
Justice Kathawalla added that “dishonest litigants collude with their advocates to use underhand means to ensure favourable orders and their consequent success in litigation instituted or defended by them.”
The court said, “Certain advocates sadly seem to have forgotten the code of ethics that enjoins upon all advocates, that they are Officers of the Court first and advocates of their clients only thereafter. It is anguishing to note that such advocates facilitate the unethical misadventures of their clients, often encouraging their clients’ dishonest practices, causing grave stress to the judiciary, and unfortunately bringing the entire judicial system to disrepute.”
Share
