HC raps Pune judge for `indiscretion’

In April this year, Goolbai Kaikhusru Batliboi, residing in Mumbai, was served an order by judge More, informing . that one Azim Karim Virani was the sole executor and trustee of both the properties, and that he had been made executor by one of the Batlibois’ ancestors. The Batlibois were told not to interfere with Virani’s claim over the properties, especially since he was the promoter of the proposed co-operative society in these two properties.

The Batlibois challenged the legality of this order in the High Court. A High Court judge ruled that the Pune Co-operative court had no jurisdiction over the execution of a yet-to-be formed or registered society, especially since it was in Mahabaleshwar. While the Pune court order was stayed, the judge did not appoint a court receiver on the properties.

The Batlibois then moved a division bench in the high court. They also expressed doubts over the alleged will of their ancestor, as was claimed by Virani, and the division bench accordingly appointed a court receiver.

However, when the court receiver went to Mahabaleshwar to take possession of the property, he was stopped by another order of the Pune Co-operative Court. This order by judge More was in response to an appeal filed by two persons claiming to be members of the proposed co-operative society allegedly sought to be formed by Virani. The court receiver was directed not to disturb the equations in the two properties.

The Batlibois moved high court yet again, and this time round, the high court not only stayed the Pune order, but passed severe strictures against the Pune judge.

The high court observed that the Pune judge has repeatedly passed orders directly contradicting the Bombay High Court’s orders despite being fully aware of the high court’s stance.

“We are prima facie satisfied that the dispute filed by the alleged members of the proposed co-operative society has been in collusion with respondent Virani,” it remarked. The high court has directed the receiver to take possession of the properties, and even break open locks is necessary, on any day including Sundays and bank holidays. The local police have been directed to extend help to the receiver in the enforcement of the order.

The Pune judge has been directed not to deal with this dispute and any other property dispute that may be filed in the co-operative court at Pune.