Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal arising from a family property dispute between the Raheja family. The appellants, Gopal L. Raheja and another, challenged an interim order passed in a suit. During the hearing of the appeal, on 20th April 2006, the counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 sought to tender an affidavit of Mrs. Tara Subramanyam, Senior Manager of HDFC. The affidavit was initially notarised and was returned to be sworn before the court as the deponent resided in Bombay. On 21st April 2006, when Mrs. Subramanyam came to the court office to affirm the affidavit, Appellant No.1, Gopal Raheja, allegedly obstructed her from doing so. The respondents contended that this conduct constituted interference with the administration of justice. The court considered the submissions and found the conduct of Appellant No.1 to be serious, amounting to obstruction of a witness and interference with the due process of law. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the interim orders passed by the trial court to prevent alienation of assets pending disposal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Obstruction of Witness - Interference with Administration of Justice - The appellant attempted to obstruct a witness, Mrs. Tara Subramanyam, from affirming her affidavit in the court office, which amounts to interference with the administration of justice. The court took serious note of such conduct. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conduct of Appellant No.1 in obstructing a witness from swearing an affidavit before the court constitutes interference with the administration of justice.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Interim orders upheld.
Law Points
- Interference with administration of justice
- obstruction of witness
- contempt of court
- interim relief
- family property dispute
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (11) 38
Appeal No.334 of 2005 in Notice of Motion No.3185 of 2004 in Suit No.3121 of 2004
Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, S.J. Vazifdar
Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Mr. P.K. Samdhani, Mr. P.K. Shroff, Mr. Subodh Joshi, Ms. Radhika Pinzara, Ms. Prachi Khandge for Appellants; Mr. N.H. Seervai for Respondent Nos.1 to 4; Mr. I.M. Chagla, Mr. Levy Pareira, Mr. S.V. Doijode, Ms. Minakshi Iyer for Respondent Nos.5 to 7; Mr. D.J. Khambata for Respondent No.8; Mr. M.S. Doctor for Respondent No.9
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against interim order in a family property dispute
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside interim orders restraining alienation of property
Filing Reason
Dispute over family property and alleged interference with administration of justice by obstructing a witness
Previous Decisions
Interim orders passed in Notice of Motion No.3185 of 2004 in Suit No.3121 of 2004
Issues
Whether the conduct of Appellant No.1 in obstructing a witness from swearing an affidavit constitutes interference with the administration of justice.
Submissions/Arguments
Respondents contended that Appellant No.1 obstructed Mrs. Tara Subramanyam from affirming her affidavit in the court office, amounting to interference with administration of justice.
Ratio Decidendi
Obstructing a witness from swearing an affidavit before the court amounts to interference with the administration of justice and is a serious matter.
Judgment Excerpts
We have been hearing the above Appeal. On 20th April, 2006, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 4 sought to tender an affidavit of one Mrs.Tara Subramanyam, Senior Manager of Housing Development and Finance Corporation Ltd. (HDFC).
It is strongly contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that Mrs.Tara Subramanyam came to the office of this Court to affirm the said affidavit on 21st April, 2006. Appellant No.1. Mr.Gopal Raheja had sought to obstruct the said lady Mrs.Tara Subramanyam from affirming her affidavit on 21st April, 2006 in the office of this Court.
Procedural History
The appeal was filed against an interim order passed in Notice of Motion No.3185 of 2004 in Suit No.3121 of 2004. During the hearing, an incident of alleged obstruction of a witness occurred on 21st April 2006. The court reserved judgment on 7th August 2006 and delivered it on 15th November 2006.
