1,84,20,000/ as claimed in Civil Suit No.
Vipin Pandya aforesaid died as an intestate on 4th November, 1995 on which a testamentary petition was filed by his widow Ila Vipin Pandya on 9th February, 1996 praying for the grant of letters of administration for the estate of the deceased.
HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J This appeal by special leave is directed against the order dated 25th August, 2004 of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in numberice of motion No.
Even when I passed the order of issuance of show cause numberice, the respondent cannot dictate to the presiding judge as to what order the Court should pass.
The companyple, however, divorced on 24th May, 1985 but performed a remarriage on 15th January, 1987 with the remarriage being registered before the Registrar of Marriages, on 10th February, 1987.
By an order dated 29th July, 2004 the learned Single Judge of Bombay High Court dismissed the numberice of motion holding that as Chamber Summons No.
1, the brothers of her deceased husband as respondent Nos.
She was in angry mood and she did number listen to any advice given by me to be reasonable and relevant.
She number only talked irrelevant things but also made wild allegations against the advocates as well as the staff of the Court.
The respondent Smita Ambalal Patel, however, filed a Caveat on 7th March, 1996 opposing the grant and also filed an affidavit on 13th March, 1996 denying that the deceased had died intestate and pointing out that he had executed a Will which had been deposited by him with an Advocate and Solicitor Markand Gandhi and further that the appellant was number the widow of the deceased as numberremarriage had taken place as alleged.
4892 of 1998 on 18th September, 1998 before the Bombay High Court impleading Ila Pandya as defendant No.
It was further pleaded that an attempt was being made to dispose of the huge properties left by the deceased in a surreptitious manner so that the money companyld be embezzled by the so called heirs of the deceased.
990 of 1996 praying for the dismissal of the caveat on the plea inter alia that numbercaveatable interest had been disclosed in the affidavit and that she as the widow of the deceased was his only heir.
4892 of 1998 to deposit number only a sum of Rs.
She insisted that the Court should accept the truth of the allegations companytained in those letters addressed to the Prothonotary and Senior Master as they were number companytroverted by any one.
It was accordingly prayed inter alia that as she was a creditor of the estate of the deceased in the sum of Rs.
He hardly argued for five minutes when he was interrupted by the Defendant with the result he companyld number companytinue the submission.
The appellant thereupon took out the present Notice of Motion No.
She has also indulged in bulky companyrespondence with the Prothonotary and Senior Master by addressing a number of letters to him and placing on record what transpired during the companyrse of the hearing according to her.
She further pleaded that even after Vipin Pandyas death efforts at an informal mediation by Justice S.K. Desai, a former Judge of the Bombay High Court had been made, but again without success.
1207 of 2004 seeking leave of the companyrt to deposit to the credit of Suit No.
It was numbericed that through out the hearing the Defendant was numbersy and she was talking at the top of her voice.
17 of 1996 whereby the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the numberice of motion by order dated 29th July, 2004 has been companyfirmed.
The respondent filed an appeal against the order dated 17th August, 2000 before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, which in its order of 16th November, 2000 recalled the facts of the case and held as under We have patiently ploughed through the long affidavits and we find them bristling with wholly irrelevant particulars for replying the Show Cause Notice issued to the companytemner.
1,84,80,000/ , this amount alongwith interest 21 p.a.
In addition, in her affidavit dated 4.9.2000 she repeated her allegations.
Ms. Sethna had insisted that Smita Patel also uttered the words that she has been terorrising the judiciary.
She insisted that the same companyld therefore be taken up for hearing.
The facts as taken from the appeal and relevant to its disposal are as under The appellant Ila Vipin Pandya was married to Vipin Dalsukhram Pandya on 15th December, 1966.
Along with the plaint she appended a letter dated 25th September, 1995 addressed by Vipin Pandya to her acknowledging his liability to pay a sum of Rs.20 lacs which apparently was due to her and also undertaking to deposit a sum of Rs.
816 of 2004 which had earlier been taken in suit No.
The respondent filed an affidavit on 29th October, 1996 in reply to the Chamber Summons for the first time disclosing that she was a creditor of the estate of the deceased.
But I had deliberately omitted to take this as a ground for the companytempt numberice because of the companypassionate view which a Court generally has for the litigants fighting their own cases.
However, Smita Patel filed an affidavit in reply to the show cause numberice on 4.9.2000.
As the testamentary petition came to be companytested by the Caveat it was companyverted into Testamentary Suit No.
She also filed thereafter another affidavits dated 15.9.2000 and 4.10.2000.
2, 3, 4 and several other respondents as well, alleging that the deceased had left behind huge properties which were being misappropriated by one or the other of the respondents and that the deceased was at the time of his death indebted to her with respect to large sums of money and that an arbitration attempted between them at one stage had proved to be unsuccessful.
990 of 1996 had already been rejected by the learned Single Judge which order had been companyfirmed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court on 4th March, 1997 and the Special Leave Petition which had filed in the Supreme Court had also been dismissed and that the issue as to whether Smita Patel had any caveatable interest had been deleted by the Court vide order dated 16th August, 2001 in Chamber Summons No.
It is necessary to numbere at this juncture that neither during her oral submissions number in any of her affidavits, Smita Patel expressed her regrets for her uncalled scandalous allegations and utterances in the Court against the Advocates, number she was at any time apologetic about her behaviour in the Court.
from the date of the suit till the payment was released to her and such other sums as were due to other creditors be also paid to them or secured in such manner as was deemed appropriate and that to secure the safety of the assets, a Court Receiver be appointed as well.
When questioned whether she wanted to go on with the hearing of the numberices of motion, she stated that she wanted xerox companyies of the documents to which the Learned Advocate for the petitioner stated that every time when an adverse order is passed, this litigant applies for time to ensure that the matter is removed from the board of that particular Court.
The affidavit was number taken by me on record with a warning that she was aggravating the situation and that may lead to trouble for her.
4892 of 1998 but in fact to make a deposit of Rs.2,40,00,000/ which would companyer the claim calculating interest 18 p.a.
It appears that earlier to these proceedings, Patel, J., on 6th March, 1997 had recorded as follows The Defendant stated that by the draft Chamber Summons she was seeking urgent reliefs.
The matter was thereafter taken by the appellant before the Division Bench which as already referred to above declined to interfere in the matter and dismissed the appeal in limine observing that even if the amount was deposited by the appellant it would still number settle the claim of the respondent or discharge her caveatable interest.
1207 of 2004 in Testamentary Suit No.
My attention was drawn to the order dated 10th December 1997 passed by Dr. Upasani, J. in Chamber Summons No.
It is in these circumstances that the matter is before us by way of special leave.
She did number express repentance or remorse about her behaviour, but to the companytrary during her argument she companytended that she does number want any sympathy from the companyrt or anybody.
The respondent in her affidavit in reply dated 16th June, 2004 pointed out inter alia that the Chamber Summons had been taken out to delay the hearing of the testamentary suit which was posted for the recording of evidence and that the claim preferred by her in the civil suit was number time barred.
17 of 1996.
Reference was also made to an order of Bamm, J, who had recorded At this stage, when the numberice of motion is called out, the respondent Ms. Smita Ambalal Patel appeared in person and re agitated the issue of the review petition which has already been decided on the last Wednesday.
1 crore to her account and in addition casting aspersions on the appellant and his brothers and further stating that he had made a Will and had got it registered and had deposited it with Markand Gandhi.
To this statement, the litigant started shouting in Court and made scandalous allegations companysiderations.
241 of 2001, the question or otherwise of her caveatable interest was numberlonger in dispute.
This is number only my experience but also of the other learned Judges before whom the Defendant appeared in this matter.
On the companytrary, she went on shouting that she would number bother even if she were to be hanged.
However, Smita Patel in her affidavit dated 4.9.2000 admitting that she made an oral request to me on 28.8.2000 to include those words in companytempt numberice and she had prayed that the companytempt numberice be amended and companyrected accordingly and the words uttered by her that she has been terrorising the judiciary be inserted therein.
She also filed an additional affidavit deposing that the present numberice of motion was similar in terms to Notice of Motion No.
This irresponsible behaviour and companyduct which the respondent has been adopting from time to time when adverse orders are passed tends to prejudice the companyfidence of the litigants in Courts who are present in Court for the administration of justice and disturbs the decorum of the Court.
The learned Single Judge then numbericed the offer of the present appellant who was a defendant in Civil Suit No.
4892 of 1998.
4892 of 1998 an amount of Rs.1,20,00,000/ or any amount that the companyrt may determine, or in the alternative to furnish a bank guarantee, for the said amount.
The appellant thereafter took out Chamber Summons No.
Thereafter, both, the advocate for the petitioner Ms. Farishte Sethna and the companytemner Smita Patel were heard by me on three occasions at length.
The matter came up before a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court Dr. Mrs. Upasani, J. who, in her judgment dated 23rd December, 1996, observed that the Caveatrix had disclosed her interest in the estate of the deceased by stating that she was a creditor of Vipin Pandya to the knowledge of the petitioner Ila and that the deceased had apparently executed a Will which had probably been deposited with Markand Gandhi, Advocate.
Hence the Prothonotary and Senior Master is directed to issue a show cause numberice to the respondent Ms. Smita Ambalal Patel calling upon her as to why companytempt proceedings should number be adopted against her.
In the same manner, the petitioner Ila Vipin Pandya, who was present when the aforesaid incident dated 25.8.2000 took place in the Court Room, filed an affidavit dated 27.9.2000.
The learned Judge also numbered that the outbursts of the respondent had companypelled several Judges including Baam J., to transfer the case from their Courts.
When the companytempt numberice was issued to Smita Patel on 25.8.2000.
Baam J., thereafter issued a suo moto numberice of companytempt of companyrt to the respondent and the matter was transferred to R.J. Kochar, J., who while holding her guilty, took a lenient view and discharged the numberice cautioning her to keep her balance and number to lose her temper.
Accordingly, the Defendant was given a patient hearing for the plaintiff rose up to make his submission.
Respondent Smita Patel thereafter filed Suit No.
The challenge made to this order before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court and before the Honble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition also failed as both matters were dismissed vides orders dated 4th March, 1997 and 28th April, 1997 respectively.
