http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 15  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2455 of 2005

PETITIONER: Ila Vipin Pandya

RESPONDENT: Smita Ambalal Patel

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/05/2007

BENCH: B.P. SINGH & HARJIT SINGH BEDI

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J 1.      This appeal by special leave is directed against the order  dated 25th August, 2004  of  the Division Bench of the Bombay  High Court in notice of motion No. 1207 of 2004 in Testamentary  Suit No. 17 of 1996 whereby the order of the learned Single   Judge dismissing the notice of motion by order dated 29th July,  2004 has been confirmed. 2.      The facts as taken from the appeal and relevant to its  disposal are as under: 3.      The appellant Ila Vipin Pandya was married to Vipin  Dalsukhram Pandya on 15th December, 1966.  The couple,  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.  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.  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 not the widow of the deceased as no  remarriage had taken place as alleged.  As the testamentary  petition came to be contested by the Caveat it was converted into  Testamentary Suit No. 17 of 1996.  The appellant thereafter took  out Chamber Summons No. 990 of 1996 praying for the  dismissal of the caveat on the plea inter alia that no caveatable  interest had been disclosed in the affidavit and that she as the  widow of the deceased was his only heir.  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.  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.  It was also observed that  creditors of a deceased could not be said to have any interest in  the estate left by him and the interest was limited to ensuring  that the assets of the estate were sufficient to pay the debts of  the deceased and that the remedy of a creditor of a deceased  under normal circumstances was to file a suit against the person  in whose favour the grant of probate or letters of    

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 15  

administration had been made, but having so held, further  observed that in the peculiar facts of the case an outright  dismissal of the caveat would not be justified.  The challenge  made to this order before the Division Bench of the Bombay High  Court and before the Hon’ble 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.   Respondent Smita Patel thereafter filed  Suit No. 4892 of 1998 on  18th September, 1998 before the Bombay High Court impleading  Ila Pandya as defendant No. 1, the brothers of her deceased  husband as respondent Nos. 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.  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. 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.  She further pleaded that even after Vipin  Pandya’s 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.  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 could  be embezzled by the so-called heirs of the deceased.  It was  accordingly prayed inter alia that as she was a creditor of the  estate of the deceased in the sum of Rs. 1,84,80,000/-, this  amount alongwith interest @ 21% p.a. 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.  The  appellant thereupon took out the present Notice of Motion (No.  1207 of 2004) seeking leave of the court to deposit to the credit of  Suit No. 4892 of 1998 an amount of Rs.1,20,00,000/- or any  amount that the court may determine, or in the alternative to  furnish  a bank guarantee, for the said amount.  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 not time barred.  She also filed an additional  affidavit deposing that the present notice of motion was similar in  terms to Notice of Motion No. 816 of 2004 which had earlier been  taken in suit No. 4892 of 1998.  By an order dated 29th July,  2004 the learned Single Judge of Bombay High Court dismissed  the notice of motion holding that as Chamber Summons No. 990  of 1996 had already been rejected by the learned Single Judge  which order had been confirmed 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. 241 of 2001,  the question or otherwise of her caveatable interest was no longer  in dispute.  The learned Single Judge then noticed the offer of the  present appellant who was a defendant in Civil Suit No. 4892 of  1998 to deposit not only a sum of Rs. 1,84,20,000/- as claimed  in Civil Suit No. 4892 of 1998 but in fact to make a deposit of   Rs.2,40,00,000/- which would cover the claim calculating

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 15  

interest @ 18% p.a. on the principal sum of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- till  date, but as no deposit had actually been made nor any bank  guarantee furnished, the notice of motion could not be allowed.     4.        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 not settle the claim of the respondent or discharge  her caveatable interest.  It is in these circumstances that the  matter is before us by way of special leave. 5.      We have heard Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned counsel for the  appellant and respondent Smita Ambalal Patel, appearing in  person.  6.      It has been urged by Mr. Nariman that the earlier set of  proceedings i.e. Chamber Summons No. 990 of 1996 which had  culminated in this court, the interest  that the respondent  claimed in the estate of the deceased Vipin Pandya had not been  spelt out, but subsequently by the filing of Civil Suit No. 4892 of  1998, the respondent had herself quantified  the amount  allegedly due to her as a creditor of the deceased and as the  appellant was willing to pay even more than the sum claimed in  the civil suit as had been noticed by the Learned Single Judge in  his order dated 29th July, 2004, there was absolutely no reason  whatsoever to hold that the respondent’s caveatable interest still  existed.  It has been pleaded that despite of fact that the  respondent had time and again referred to a Will executed by  Vipin Pandya and had often threatened to produce the same in  court, she had not done so despite the fact that the testamentary  suit had been filed way back in 1996 and she had in this  interregnum fought the proceedings in every possible forum, both  civil and criminal.   It was also argued that even assuming that a  remarriage had not been performed by Ila Pandya appellant with  Vipin Pandya on 15th January, 1987, the property left by him  would devolve on his siblings, who had in their affidavits pleaded  that a re-marriage had indeed taken place and that Ila        Pandya was the widow and was therefore entitled to all his  property and that they had absolutely no objection if the letters  of administration were granted to her.  It has further been  contended that the respondent had till today not alleged that she  had any interest in the assets of the deceased other than that of  a creditor for the aforesaid quantified figure.  He has finally  contended that the appellant was willing to pay any amount  which this court found adequate so as to bring the entire set of  bitter and acrimonious proceedings between the parties to an  end.   7.        The respondent appearing in person, however,  categorically rejected any possibility of a settlement and also  referred to several letters and documents on record pointing out  that the advocates who had been appearing in these and  connected proceedings from time to time had been guilty of  defrauding her of her due and that in the light of fact that the  Supreme Court had also declined the appellant’s prayer for  issuance of Chamber Summons challenging her caveatable  interest, the matter being res-judicata no further proceedings  were justified on account of the present notice of motion.  On the  last date of hearing i.e  on 3rd May, 2007 she had also submitted  written arguments in the form of an affidavit which we have  taken on record in which she at the very outset deposed that Mr.  Nariman had on 11th January, 2007 made an offer to pay a sum  of Rs. 4 crore by way of a settlement but that this amount was  not acceptable in view of the huge properties left by the deceased  and that the properties identified in the amended schedule of  assets shown at item Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 10 (a),(b), 11 (a)(b), 12 and  18 in addition to some amount towards counsel fee alone would  be acceptable.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 15  

8.              We have considered the arguments advanced before  us.  It is true, as has been contended by the respondent, that  Chamber Summons No.  990 of 1996 taken out by the appellant  had been dismissed on 23rd December, 1996 by Upasani, J. with  the observation that though the normal procedure for the  recovery of a debt due from a deceased was a suit by the creditor  against the beneficiaries of the estate but in the peculiar facts of  the case the respondent did have a caveatable interest.   Concededly this order had been confirmed by the Division Bench  of the Bombay High Court and thereafter by the Supreme Court  with the Special Leave Petition being dismissed in limine.   However, we find that Civil Suit No. 4892 of 1998 had been filed  subsequently and it is at this stage that the present notice of  motion has been moved by the appellant conceding her claim and  undertaking to deposit all sums due to her before the Bombay  High Court.  We are therefore unable to understand that in the  background that the respondent has claimed only a creditors  interest in the estate of the deceased and on no other  relationship or basis in the several proceedings that have been  filed by her, can it be pleaded that her caveatable interest still  continued to survive?   It bears repetition that the respondent  has time and again referred to a Will allegedly executed by Vipin  Pandya and had even in the arguments before us repeatedly  asserted that she would produce it in the testamentary suit  pending in the Bombay High Court, but has not done so till day  though the suit had been filed in the year 1996 and is at the  stage of the recording of evidence.   On the contrary we find that  Vipin Pandya’s siblings have given affidavits identifying Ila  Pandya appellant as his widow and legal heir and deposing that  they had no objection to the letters of administration being  granted to her.  We are thus unable to comprehend or fathom the  right that the respondent still claims in the estate of the deceased  so as to maintain her status as a caveatrix.  The written  arguments submitted by the respondent are completely silent on  this aspect, and rake up absolutely irrelevant issues. 9.              There is yet another disturbing feature of this case  which needs to be highlighted. We must, at the outset,  emphasize that a litigant appearing in person does not enjoy a  status higher than that of a lawyer arguing a case for his client.   We are also aware that such a litigant is nevertheless given extra  consideration by the court for several justifiable reasons; first,  the torturous and cumbersome court procedures are truly  debilitating and tend to exhaust and frustrate the most hardened  and energetic litigant, often making him bitter about the entire  system; secondly   as a layman with limited knowledge of law he  is unable to distinguish between a relevant and an irrelevant  argument leading to verbosity and finally, being over sensitive to  his case with the opposite counsel and Judge often being  identified as belonging to a hostile camp, an occasional  digression or deviation from established norms and mores is   tolerated.  We have, however, come to notice a growing tendency  on the part of some litigants to misuse the latitude granted to  them and to deliberately create a situation whereby the  functioning of the court becomes an impossibility thus stultifying  the entire judicial process.  Smita Patel falls eminently within  this category.  During the course of arguments spread over parts  of three days she refused to argue on the merits of her case and  on the issues raised by Mr. Nariman but used foul language for  some of the counsel who had been associated with this and other  connected matters dubbing them as criminals closely associated  with those who had been responsible for the Bombay blasts.  We  had at first advised her to be careful and to refrain from making  baseless allegations against those who were not before the Court  as parties and had subsequently cautioned her that she was over  stepping the limits of decency which would compel us to take

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 15  

unpleasant steps against her, but to no avail. On the contrary  she shouted back that the court could do whatever it liked but  she would continue to expose the advocates who were a threat to  the safety and security of her country. Finding it impossible to  proceed any further we were constrained to record the following  order on 3rd May, 2007: "The respondent, appearing in person, had  started her arguments in this case on 28.3.2007  at 3.00 p.m. and the matter remained part- heard on that day.  Thereafter, she resumed her  arguments on 12.4.2007 at 3.15 p.m. and did  not complete even on that date.  Thereafter, the  matter came up for hearing on 19th April, 2007  when a telegram sent by the respondent was  placed before us in which she had requested for  adjournment of the matter till 2nd May, 2007.   That is how the matter is before us today.

The respondent, appearing in person,  resumed her arguments at 10.40 a.m.  She has  not addressed any argument so far which may  be considered to be relevant to the issue  involved in the appeal before us.  We have  repeatedly tried to persuade her to deal with the  submissions urged on behalf of the appellant.   Rather than doing that, she has been reading  before us various documents in the different  volumes of the paper book relating to the  conduct of certain advocates and she insisted  that she is concerned about the misconduct of  the advocates who have held this country to  ransom and who have associated in causing  bomb blasts in this country.  When we tried to  explain to her that we are not concerned with  those issues and we are concerned with only  those issues which are relevant to the dispute  before us, she retorted that she is very much  concerned with the misconduct of lawyers and  her real fight is against them not the appellant  and therefore, we must hear her on those  issues.  When we explained to her that those  issues are irrelevant and she must confine  herself to the relevant issues she raised her  voice and started addressing the Court in a  manner unbecoming of even a party appearing  in person.  Having regard to the fact that she is  a lady and she is appearing in person, and that  she may have a grievance, we tolerated her to  the extent possible.  Her conduct is now beyond  tolerance.  She has reduced the judicial  proceeding to a mockery.  Since she is wasting  the time of the Court by referring to irrelevant  record and not addressing the Court on the  issues involved, we are constrained to close the  arguments.  Since the respondent persists in  raising her voice and making irrelevant  comments in a manner which completely erodes  the sanctity of judicial proceeding, we shall only  be wasting the time of the Court, if we continue  to hear the respondent further.  We shall  proceed to pronounce our judgment in due  course.          The respondent who appears in person has  handed over to us written arguments on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 15  

affidavit and prays that her written submissions  may be taken into consideration.  We shall  certainly take into consideration the written  arguments submitted by her".  

10.             We have also gone through the earlier record of  proceedings and find a very disturbing picture indeed.  It appears  that the testamentary suit was fixed for framing of issues before  Deshpande, J., of the Bombay High Court on 25th August, 2000,  when she misbehaved in Court on which a notice to show cause  as to why action for contempt of Court should not be taken  against her was served on her there and then and eight days time  was allowed to file a reply.  The Learned Judge thereafter by his  order dated 17th August, 2000 found her guilty under Section 12  of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and sentenced her to  undergo simple imprisonment for three weeks and to a fine of  Rs.2000/- in default, to undergo a sentence for one week and  also directed her to pay Rs.5000/- as costs to the counsel for the  petitioner.  The observations in the aforesaid order tell their own  tale and we re-produce hereunder some paragraphs from it : "This matter was on board on 25.8.2000  for framing issues, when for no reason and  without any provocation from the advocate for  the petitioner Ms. Farishte Sethna, contemner  lost her temper and started making accusation  against Ms. Sethna, in particular, and  advocates in general calling them Virappan, the  dreaded sandal decoit from South, kidnapping  Justice and dictating terms to the judges.  She  was warned repeatedly by me of consequences  for making such reckless allegations.  But she  continued to make them without taking into  account all the warnings.  She lost her temper,  sense of propriety and not maintaining decorum  and created chaos in the court room.

Then and there is a notice was served  upon her as to why action for contempt should  not be taken against her.  She was given eight  days time to give reply.

Not affected in the least by contempt notice  served upon her, the contemner Smita Patel  came to the court on 2nd or 3rd day with an  affidavit and started asserting that she had said  something more against the advocates and that  should be include in the contempt notice.  The  affidavit was not taken by me on record with a  warning that she was aggravating the situation  and that may lead to trouble for her.  However,  Smita Patel filed an affidavit in reply to the show  cause notice on 4.9.2000.  She also filed  thereafter another affidavits dated 15.9.2000  and 4.10.2000.  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.  Thereafter, both, the advocate  for the petitioner Ms. Farishte Sethna and the  contemner Smita Patel were heard by me on  three occasions at length.

It is necessary to note at this juncture that  neither during her oral submissions nor in any  of her affidavits, Smita Patel expressed her

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 15  

regrets for her uncalled scandalous allegations  and utterances in the Court against the  Advocates, nor she was at any time apologetic  about her behaviour in the Court.  She did not  express repentance or remorse about her  behaviour, but to the contrary during her  argument she contended that she does not want  any sympathy from the court or anybody.  In  addition, in her affidavit dated 4.9.2000 she  repeated her allegations.  When the contempt  notice was issued to Smita Patel on 25.8.2000.   Ms. Sethna had insisted that Smita Patel also  uttered the words that she has been terorrising  the judiciary.  But I had deliberately omitted to  take this as a ground for the contempt notice  because of the compassionate view which a  Court generally has for the litigants fighting  their own cases.  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 contempt notice and she  had prayed that the contempt notice be  amended and corrected accordingly and the  words uttered by her that "she has been  terrorising the judiciary" be inserted therein.

If the contemner wants and insists upon  making situation difficult for her, is adamant  and has uncalled for recklessness upon such  insistence, then the Court can not have any  objection, and therefore, while deciding the  contempt notice, I am doing to take cognizance  of those words uttered by her on 25.8.2000 to  the effect that she has been terrorising the  judiciary.

In fact the words uttered by Smita Patel in  the Show cause notice and as now added were  uttered by her before Justice R.J. Kochar also  on 23.8.2000, as submitted and pointed out  before me by Ms. Sethna, Smita Patel in her  affidavit dated 4.9.2000, admitted to have  uttered those words before Justice R.J. Kochar.   However, what happened before Justice Kochar  on 23.8.2000 can not be made subject matter of  the contempt notice because Justice Kochar did  not take any action against contemner Smita  Patel.  

From the aforesaid circumstances it would  be clear that utterances of Smita Patel in the  court that advocates are Virappan, they are  kidnapping Justice and dictating the terms to  the Judges and they have been terrorising the  Judiciary are undoubtedly contemptuous and  they are nothing short of criminal contempt  which is defined in Section 2 (c) of the Contempt  of Courts Act, 1971\005\005;

11.    The learned Single Judge also recorded that: "\005\005\005\005\005\005\005.very rarely persons  fighting their own cases in the Courts  behave in the manner in which Smita Patel  has been behaving in the Courts\005\005\005.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 15  

12.   And further "So far as misbehaviour of Smita Patel  is concerned, she has crossed all the limits.   So far as misbehaviour in Court is  concerned, she is in the habit of loosing  temper in Court, shouting and raising her  voice, scorning at the advocates, making  faces, and gestures contemptuous to the  other side, making show to the public,  addressing the huge mob\005\005\005\005."

13.    And yet further "Even while arguing this show cause  notice Smita Patel did not stop and did not  control her expressions.  She was  contemptuous while Ms. Sethna addressing  the Court.    She  was  making  faces in   the  

Court, laughing and smiling as if the  contempt notice is a prize or garland offered  to her by the whole judicial system for her  fighting against so called corruption and  unfair tactics of the advocates\005\005\005\005\005"

14.       Deshpande, J. also referred to her misbehaviour in other  Courts as well and to the proceedings before Upasani J., in  which she had made the following order: "Caveatrix S. Patel who is appearing in  person is shouting very loudly and is  disturbing the Court proceedings.  Actually  she is talking and screaming in a very high  pitch which makes it impossible for the court  to go on with the hearing of this  matter"\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005

"\005Mr. D.S. Parikh has agreed to the  expeditious hearing of the petition and the  suggestion was made to hear Notice of Motion  along with petition at an early date.  However,  the Caveatrix, after hearing this suggestion,  has backed out and has started speaking all  sorts of irrelevant things accusing Advocates,  the judicial systems in general, without giving  specific reply to the query made by the Court.   In the commotion caused by the shouting and  screaming of Ms. Patel, it is not possible to go  on with the proceedings.  The Court is,  therefore, constrained to adjourn the matter to  the next date.

At this stage, Mr. D.S. Parikh, who is  appearing for the petitioner, makes an earnest  oral request, in view of the allegations hurled  by the Caveatrix against the Advocates and  judicial system and in view of the commotion  which is being created by the Caveatrix and in  view of the irrelevant speeches obviously  intended for playing to the gallery that the  proceeding be tape-recorded so that whatever  unwarranted, irrelevant and almost  defamatory remarks are passed by the  Caveatrix would be recorded".     Heard Mr. D.S. Parikh, so also the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 15  

Caveatrix.  The Caveatrix is shouting loudly to  the effect that "why tape recorder, even Video  Camera should be fitted in the Court Room  and every thing should be recorded".  

Perused the proceedings.  It was informed  to this court across the bar that even my  predecessor Mrs. Baam J, had given directions  that a lady constable should remain present in  court obviously in view of the violent nature  and frequent outbursts of  the Caveatrix.  On  this backgraound, the Caveatrix obviously  appears to be out of control and is in fact  disturbing the court proceedings; the  suggestion made by Mr. D.S. Parikh appears to  be worth taking notice of it.  Hence, the  following order is passed:

Mr. D.S. Parikh may bring his tape  recorder on the next date and the Court may  consider whether the proceedings should be  recorded or not on that day".  

15.    On 24th December, 1997 Upasani, J also passed the  following order: "\005\005There used to be always heated  arguments and outbursts, unwarranted  remarks; playing to the gallery-attitude on the  part of the Defendant, and there used to be  always atmosphere of chaos in the Court  Room.  The hearing therefore, could not take  place in the congenial, peaceful and disciplined  atmosphere as it should be in any Court of  Law.  Very often, the Defendant has gone  astray while arguing the matter and has  deviated from the averments made in the  Chamber Summons, making some results and  many of the points remained to be clarified in  the utter chaos that ensued".

 16.      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.  She insisted that the same could  therefore be taken up for hearing.  Accordingly,  the Defendant was given a patient hearing for  the plaintiff rose up to make his submission. He  hardly argued for five minutes when he was  interrupted by the Defendant with the  result he  could not continue the submission.  It was  noticed that through out the hearing the  Defendant was noisy and she was talking at the  top of her voice.  She not only talked irrelevant  things but also made wild allegations against  the advocates as well as the staff of the Court.   She was in angry mood and she did not listen to  any advice given by me to be reasonable and  relevant.  On the contrary, she went on  shouting that she would not bother even if she  were to be hanged.  The behaviour of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 15  

Defendant in the Court Room was highly  undignified and objectionable.  In fact, it is  found that she has been conducting herself in  the same manner whenever she appears in the  Court.  This is not only my experience but also  of the other learned Judges before whom the  Defendant appeared in this matter.  My  attention was drawn to the order dated 10th  December 1997 passed by Dr. Upasani, J. in  Chamber Summons No. 446 of 1997 wherein  observations about the objectionable demeanor  of the Defendant are made.  Shri Merchant, the  learned Advocate for the plaintiff therefore  submitted that the Court should take stern  action against the Defendant for her  misbehaviour.  The Defendant being a lady, not  represented by any advocate, was shown some  indulgence and tolerance.  However, the Court  will have to think seriously in case the  Defendant persists in misusing the indulgence  so as to disturb and obstruct the court  proceedings".   

17.     Yet later, Datar J., on 27th April, 1998 observed that         Mr. Humranwalla for the petitioner/plaintiff had stated that    M/s. Humranwalla & Co. was thinking of withdrawing from the  matter because of the wild allegations made by the Caveatrix,  and that   Mr. Merchant, learned counsel for the petitioner had  also refused to appear in the matter.   18.       Reference was also made to an order of Bamm, J, who  had recorded: "At this stage, when the notice of motion is  called out, the respondent \026 Ms. Smita Ambalal  Patel \026 appeared in person and re-agitated the  issue of the review petition which has already  been decided on the last Wednesday.  When  questioned whether she wanted to go on with the  hearing of the notices of motion, she stated that  she wanted xerox copies 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.  To this statement, the litigant  started shouting in Court and made scandalous  allegations considerations".  This irresponsible  behaviour and conduct which the respondent has  been adopting from time to time when adverse  orders are passed tends to prejudice the  confidence of the litigants in Courts who are  present in Court for the administration of justice  and disturbs the decorum of the Court.

Hence the Prothonotary and Senior Master  is directed to issue a show cause notice to the  respondent \026 Ms. Smita Ambalal Patel \026 calling  upon her as to why contempt proceedings should  not be adopted against her.  Even when I passed  the order of issuance of show cause notice, the  respondent cannot dictate to the presiding judge  as to what order the Court should pass.  The  respondent thinks that she knows everything and  time and again she disturbs the proceedings in  the Court and thereby prejudices the progress of  other matters in the Court.  She left the Court in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 15  

a huff and puff and again shouted to the effects  "the Learned Advocate for the petitioner, Shri  Humranwalla, should go in jail".  This is the  attitude adopted by her from time to time which  does not befit a litigant.  By this behaviour which  she has been adopting from time to time, by  shouting and screaming in Court, she has been  causing nuisances and prejudices the Court  proceedings, and every time when the order is  padded, which is not to her liking, she creates  contemptuous atmosphere which not only  disturbs the decorum of the Court, but also  prejudice the progress of the proceedings in the  Court".  

19.     Baam J., thereafter issued a suo moto notice of contempt  of court 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 notice cautioning her to keep her balance and not  to lose her temper.  The learned Judge also noted that the  outbursts of the respondent had compelled several Judges  including Baam J., to transfer the case from their Courts. 20.       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 contemner. She  has also indulged in bulky correspondence with  the Prothonotary and Senior Master by  addressing a number of letters to him and  placing on record what transpired during the  course of the hearing according to her.  She  insisted that the Court should accept the truth of  the allegations contained in those letters  addressed to the Prothonotary and Senior Master  as they were not controverted by any one".   

xxxx            xxxx            xxxx            xxxx            xxxx

   "At the outset, we felt that the contemner  being a lay person was, perhaps, likely to be  impetuous on account of the trauma which she  might have undergone during a series of  litigations, which she had to prosecute in this  Court.  Though the appeal as such involves very  limited issues of fact and law, we have given the  contemner a disproportionately long and patient  hearing lasting the whole of yesterday and  virtually half of the morning session today.   During her long rambling arguments, at times  incoherent and punctuated by bitter sobs and  impassioned pleas, the contemner made a few  points of law, which we have noted. On one such  point, we thought that we should call upon a  natural impartial counsel to address the Court.   We, therefore, requested the learned Advocate  General to address us with regard to the question  of law.  We express our grateful appreciation of  the assistance rendered by the learned Advocate  \026 General".  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 15  

xxxx            xxxx            xxxx            xxxx             

"The next question that arises is, whether  the learned Judge was justified in the quantum  of punishment imposed on her.  In view of the  contemner’s history that we have narrated, it  appeared to the learned Single Judge, and it  appears to us too, that the leniency showed by  different learned Judges was misconstrued as  weakness by the contemner.  It may be that the  contemner is the victim of circumstances where  under someone cheated her and some advocates  behaved unprofessionally in connection with her  litigation.  It may also be possible that she has  lost her mental balance because of the said facts.  (Though, considering the manner in which the  contemner coolly argued the appeal before us, we  are not inclined to believe that she has really lost  her mental balance).  These were the  circumstances specifically considered by Kochar,  J. when he discharged the contempt notice  issued to the contemner in view of the apology  tendered, undertaking given, and the promise of  future good behaviour.  It appears to us that the  trust and confidence reposed by Kochar, J. in the  contemner stood betrayed on account of her  conduct before the learned Single Judge  (Deshpande, J) the details of which we have  already referred to.  Considering the different  orders passed by the different learned Judges of  this Court and, the circumstances under which  each of the said learned Judges felt that the  contemner was taking undue advantage of the  leniency of the court and behaving in a manner  obstructive or decorous administration of justice  in the court, we are not in a position to say that  the learned Single Judge has imposed a  disproportionate quantum of punishment, in view  of the background of the case".  

 21.      The Division Bench accordingly confirmed the order of  the Learned Single Judge.  The matter was thereafter brought   to this Court by way of Criminal Appeal No. 382 of 2001, and  on the  "fervent appeal" made by   Mr. V.S. Kotwal,  her Counsel  that some indulgence be shown to her as she would  hereafter  not perpetrate any contempt of court and further observing that  as she was a lady it appeared that the apology was infact  genuine, by order dated 26th March, 2001 directed that the  sentence imposed would remain suspended for a period of five  years on the following conditions: 1.      "Appellant shall give an undertaking  before the Single Judge (before whom  the contempt was committed by her)  in the form of an affidavit that she  will not commit any act of contempt  of any court hereafter;

2.      If the said undertaking is violated the  sentence of imprisonment imposed on  her will automatically review and  appellant will be liable to be put in  prison for undergoing that part of the  sentence;

3.       The fine part of the sentence as well

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 15  

as the orders to pay cost would  remain undisturbed and appellant  shall not apply for refund of the  same;

4.      If the appellant fails to give the said  undertaking within four weeks from  today she will forfeit the benefit  granted as per this order; and  

5.      As to what would be the situation  after the period of five years will be  decided by the High Court on a  motion made by the appellant  contemnor.

   With these observations this appeal is disposed of".

22.     We find that in the light of the above directions we could  send her to jail to serve out her sentence, but we desist from  doing so. 23.     The matter does not end here.  We had, as already  indicated, closed arguments on 3rd May 2006 by a speaking  order.  On the very next day some applications on affidavit dated  4th May 2007 tendered apparently by the respondent were sent to  us, again referring to some of the proceedings that had been  going on and again raking up irrelevant issues.  We reproduce  hereunder and verbatim some extracts therefrom:                   "Thereafter, in the midst of the  arguments of the respondent, the learned Senior  Counsel Mr. R.F. Nariman got up and stated  that they were prepared to offer anything for  settlement.  The respondent had at this  juncture, furnished two sets of "written  arguments on affidavit of the respondent dated  02.05.2007" to the court and one to the learned  Senior Counsel Mr. R.F. Nariman and prayed for  the say of the Learned Counsel as well as the  appellant.  The Court read the entire affidavit.   The respondent states that the appellant who is  the front/ostensible party of the advocates on  record engaged by the underworld who are the  real parties and have been repeatedly violating  the orders/undertaking/status quo orders of  the Bombay High Court, tempering with judicial  order of the court as well as the courts record  with the connivance of the court staff.  These  advocates have no regard for truth and the  courts of law.  The respondent states that it is  untrue and incorrect to record by Your  Lordships that the respondent does not want to  argue on points raised by the learned Senior  Counsel Mr. R.F. Nariman for the appellant and  therefore the court is closing the respondent’s  arguments.  In fact he had completed his  argument on 11.4.2007 and the respondent had  started her argument on 11.4.2007 from 2.15  p.m. to 4.00 p.m. and on 12.4.2007 from 3.15  p.m. to 4 p.m. and on 03.05.2007 from 10.45  a.m. to 12.15 p.m. and has partially dealt with  the learned Senior Counsel Mr. R.F. Nariman’s  argument".

xxxx        xxxx           xxxx            xxxx

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 15  

"The application dated 26.04.2007 (without  annexures) made to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of  the Bombay High Court by the respondent and  inter-alia prayed that the only way to weed out the  cancer of corruption from the judiciary and prevent  the unholly nexus between the few corrupt  advocates and the court staff is "To hang the victim  Smita Patel from the strong hook kept in the  Central Court of the Bombay High Court instead  from a lamp post on 15th August 2007 on the  Independence Day under the directions of the  coming Chief Justice Shri Swatanter Kumar.

In the light of the above submissions, the  respondent states that she has not said anything  that would attract contempt of courts action against  her.  However, if this Hon’ble Court still inclined to  initiate contempt notice, the respondent prays as  under:-

(A) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to order that  from the Platform Plaza (in the front of the Hon’ble  Chief Justice Court Room No.1) the respondent be  shot from a cannon and killed like "Rani Laxmibai- The Jhansi Ki Rani" who was shot and killed by the  Britishers as was the practice.

(B) A dynamid  be directed to be kept and the  respondent is willing to sit on the lap of the statue  of Mahatma Gandhi situated in front of the garden  lawn of the Supreme Court and light the fuse  herself."

Nota Bene:  Some of the extracts in the preceding  paragraphs have spelling  and grammatical errors, but we have  reproduced them verbatim from the record before us.

24.        It is indeed disgusting to see a litigant attempting to  intimidate the Supreme Court and two of its Judges in such a  crude and obnoxious manner.

25.          A resume of the facts clearly reveal the incorrigible and  recalcitrant attitude of the respondent.  We could perhaps  condone her errant conduct if she was merely a highly strung  and impetuous lady over-sensitive to her case and unaware of  the nuances of the law and the decorum to be maintained in  Court but we are satisfied that no ignorance nor mental  imbalance is discernible which can be pleaded in extenuation of  her behaviour. The record reveals that she is well aware of the  conduct of  the judicial process and the law and facts relating to  her case, but she has evolved  a strategy which has thus far kept  her in good stead as it has been designed to filibuster the  proceedings in case she finds that they are not taking the  direction that she has chalked out and that despite her  conviction for contempt of court on two occasions and numerous  admonitions and warnings notwithstanding, she has remained  unfazed and has in a most unbecoming manner relentlessly and  ruthlessly pursued the litigation.  We also quote yet again from  the judgment of the Division Bench dated 16th November, 2000:         "It may also be possible that she has lost  her mental balance because of the said facts.  (Though, considering the manner in which the  contemner coolly argued the appeal before us,  we are not inclined to believe that she has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 15  

really lost her mental balance)".

We completely endorse this observation.

26.         We must emphasize that a Court is not a forum which  can be used for spewing venom and vitriol on the opposite party,  and even more alarmingly, on the judge hearing the case and the  counsel representing that party.   The written arguments that the  respondent has filed in court betray her purpose. The new  demands clearly reveal her intention  to extort as much as she  can from the appellant, who, it must be presumed, is exhausted  and drained by the huge number of court proceedings that have  been going on for the last 11 years.

 27.      We have advisedly given the detailed history of this  litigation to emphasize that those who attempt to take court  proceedings lightly or try to subvert the judicial process to their  advantage, do so at their peril.  The imposition of exemplary  costs must,  as a consequence,  follow.  28.         In this view of the matter we allow this appeal and set  aside the order dated 29th July, 2004 of the learned Single Judge    and 25th August, 2004 of the Division Bench and allow the notice  of motion and direct that the appellant shall, within a period of  three months  from today deposit a sum of Rs.2,40,00,000/- in  all with the prothonotary of the Bombay High Court (and after  deduction of the costs) the balance to be disbursed to the  respondent in full discharge of her claim as a Caveatrix in the  testamentary suit and as a plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 4892 of  1998, and that no application of whatever nature in respect of  these two matters will hereinafter be entertained by any Court.   We are also of the opinion that as a consequence of the above  direction and in the interest of justice the respondent’s interest  as a caveatrix  shall stand discharged and the Civil Suit filed by  her shall also be deemed to be disposed of.  29.      We also impose costs of Rs. five lakhs to be recovered  from the sum awarded as above.  The amount representing   the  costs will be donated to a charity to be identified by the Chief  Justice of the Bombay High Court.