Bombay High Court: On 29-04-2025, a Single Judge Bench of Madhav J. Jamdar, J., alleged that the advocates against whom he had proceeded, namely, Mr. Mathews Nedumpara and Mr. Vijay Kurle, had attempted to frame him in a financial transaction concerning a flat owned by him and his wife. Accordingly, the Court directed a police inquiry into the same.
Background
In another matter in the order dated 09-04-2025, the Court recorded the conduct of Mr. Vijay Kurle, Advocate. The Court noted that Mr. Kurle showed that instead of restraining and preventing his client from resorting to sharp and unfair practices, he acted as an agent of his client by appearing in the matter which had been completely heard and kept for passing an order. The Court also recorded that during the open dictation of this order, Mr. Kurle wanted to leave the Court despite being told that his presence was required. Accordingly, the Court directed the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to conduct an appropriate enquiry against Mr. Kurle.
In National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency & Reforms v. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 687, the Court noted that Mr. Nedumpara alleged that the Judges of the Court were wholly unfit to designate persons as Senior Advocates, as they only designate Judges’ relatives as Senior Advocates. He also attempted to browbeat and embarrass the Court and made several contemptuous statements. The Court noted that this was not the first time Mr. Nedumpara had attempted to browbeat and insult Judges of the Court. The Court opined that Mr. Nedumpara gets briefed to appear in hopeless cases and attempts, by browbeating the Court, to get discretionary orders, which no Court is otherwise prepared to give. In this case, the Court issued notice to Mr. Nedumpara for contempt of court and a a suo motu contempt petition was registered against him.
In the contempt case, the Supreme Court sentenced Mr. Nedumpara to three months imprisonment, which was, however, suspended if he continued to abide by his undertaking that he would never attempt to browbeat any judge of the Supreme Court or the Bombay High Court.
The Court also took note of the complaint filed against some judges by Mr. Kurle and initiated a criminal contempt case against Mr. Kurle, wherein that it was held that the complaint was a proxy battle for Mr. Nedumpara, since they were very close.
In the present case, on 02-04-2025, Mr. Mathews Nedumpara, Advocate, tried to make submissions, however, the Court informed Mr. Nedumpara that he would not be heard and requested him “to take a seat”, which he did. He did not express that he was insulted by the Court by telling him “to take a seat”.
On 17-04-2025, Mr. Nedumpara told the Court that he was insulted when the Court asked him to take a seat and that he was not the slave of the Court. The Court held that these statements were made by Mr. Nedumpara to humiliate, browbeat, and tarnish the image of this Court, which amounted to contempt. The Court also noted that from 02-04-205 to 17-04-2025, Mr. Nedumpara expressed no grievance, but after an inquiry was ordered against Mr. Kurle on 09-04-2025, that is when he expressed that he was insulted. Additionally, Mr. Kurle was present in Court when this matter was heard.
The Court held that it was clear that Mr. Nedumpara made the aforementioned statements prima facie to humiliate and browbeat the Court and tarnish the image of the Court. The Court also held that the conduct of leaving the court room when the matter was being considered regarding his conduct, amounted to lowering or tending to lower the authority of the Court, interferes or tenders to interfere with the due course of the judicial proceeding, and obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice.
Analysis and Decision
The presiding judge herein, i.e., Madhav J. Jamdar, J., elaborated on an incident that happened to him. He stated that he and his wife own a flat in Mumbai. On 22-04-2025, one person named Mr. Sarkar called his wife and stated that he was interested in purchasing the flat immediately. The next day again, Mr Sarkar called, repeating his request and urging an immediate transaction. To avoid the consideration being paid in cash, Justice Jamdar spoke to Mr. Sarkar, informing him that he was a judge at the Bombay High Court and would require the transaction to be in cheque. Hearing this, Mr. Sarkar laughed for about 20-30 seconds and then told Justice Jamdar that the entire payment would be made by cheque. After this conversation, Justice Jamdar became suspicious and proceeded to see Mr. Sarkar’s WhatsApp display picture on his wife’s phone. Upon perusing the same, Justice Jamdar discovered that the picture was of Mr. Partho Sarkar, Advocate, and Mr. Sarkar had never revealed that he was an advocate during his communications with Justice Jamdar or his wife.
The Court opined that this was a clear attempt to frame the court for passing an order against Mr. Kurle. The Court stated that Mr. Sarkar carried on a conversation for two days in a manner that it would appear to be a genuine transaction to be finalised soon. Regarding the submission that Mr. Sarkar had been negotiating a failed transaction with Justice Jamdar’s wife, the Court stated that Mr. Sarkar had called Justice Jamdar’s wife once on 29-10-2023, but it was unclear whether that call too was to frame the Court.
As far as the association of Mr. Sarkar with Mr. Kurle and Mr. Nedumpara was concerned, the Court noted that Mr. Sarkar had appeared in the case where the inquiry was initiated against Mr. Kurle by the Court and in the contempt proceedings initiated against him by the Supreme Court. He also appeared as an Advocate in Chamber in a case filed by Mr. Nedumpara against a Judge of the Bombay High Court. In this regard, the Court referred to National Lawyers (supra) wherein the Supreme Court observed that if lawyers can be bold enough to file writ petitions against Judges of a High Court on observations judicially made by a Judge of the High Court, the very independence of the judiciary itself comes under threat. It was further observed that the conduct of Mr. Nedumpara before the Tribunals, the Bombay High Court, and the Supreme Court made it clear that he had embarked on a course of conduct which was calculated to defeat the administration of justice in this country.
Noting the chain of events, the Court stated that there was a very clear attempt to frame the Court. The Court stated that clearly, Mr. Sarkar acted after orders were passed by Justice Jamdar against Mr. Kurle and Mr. Nedumpara. Accordingly, the Court directed the Higher Official of Maharashtra/ Senior Police Inspector, Malabar Hill Police Station, Mumbai, to conduct an inquiry against the phone calls made by Mr. Sarkar to Justice Jamdar’s wife and submit a report to the Registrar General within three weeks.
Regarding Mr. Sarkar’s request that the Court should be precluded from hearing any proceeding concerning his conduct, the Court rejected the same. In this regard, the Court relied on National Lawyers (supra) wherein it was held that if a Judge is personally attacked, it would be proper for the Judge to not deal with the matter himself, in cases of contempt in the face of the Court. In the aforementioned case, the Supreme Court relied on Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. Pepsu High Court, (1953) 2 SCC 571.
Thus, the Court directed that this writ petition be placed before the Chief Justice for it to be assigned to an appropriate bench.
[Sabina Lakdawala v. Feroze Y. Lakdawala, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 1740, decided on 29-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Hemali Kurne, Maria Nedumpara, Shameem Fayiz, and Amit Kakri
For the respondent: Ashish Venugopal, Sagar Shetty, Krushika Udeshi, Aprajita Mahto, Akshay Naik, Shubham More, Pranav Khatkul, PP H. S. Venegavkar, APP A. S. Gotad, Subhash Jha, Nicky Pokar, and Ghanshyam Upadhyay
