IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.2667 OF 2007 WITH CROSS OBJECTION NO.584 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5148 O 2008 Charu Kishore Mehta ..Appellant. Vs. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust and others ..Respondents. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2670 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5538 OF 2008 Kishor Kirtilal Mehta ..Appellant. Vs. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust and others ..Respondents. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2671 OF 2007 Prashant K. Mehta ..Appellant. Vs. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust and others ..Respondents. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2672 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5540 OF 2008 Rajiv K. Mehta ..Appellant. Vs. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust and others ..Respondents. ..... Mr.T. N. Tripathi, Ms. Sapna Rachure i/b T. N. Tripathi & Co. for the Appellant in First Appeal No. 2667 of 2007. Ms. Aziza Khatri with Mr. Shane Sapeco i/b Hariani & Co. for the Appellants in First Appeal No.2670 of 2007. Mr. Pranav Badheka with Ms. Aziza Khatri with Mr. Shane Sapeco i/b Hariani & Co. for the Appellants in First Appeal 2671 of 2007 and 2672 of 2007. Mr. Iqbal Chagla, Senior Advocate with Mr. Snehal Shah, Mr. Sanjay Jain, Ms. Bindi Dave, Mr. Kunal Vajani, Mr. Atul Daga and Mr. Rohan Dakshini i/b M/s. Wadia Ghandy & Co. for Respondent Nos.1, 5, 8, 9 ad 10 in First Appeal Nos. 2667, 2670, 2671, 2672 of 2007 and Cross objection Stamp No.584 of 2008. Ms. Jyoti Shah i/b M/s. Daru Shah & Co. for Respondent No.2 in First Appeal Nos. 2667, 2670, 2671, 2672 of 2007. Mr. Pratik Sakseria i/b Mr. M.K. Banatwala for Respondent No.3 in First Appeal Nos. 2667, 2670, 2671 and 2672 of 2007. Mr. Shane Sapeco with Mr. Nagendra Dube i/b Hariani & Co. for Respondent Nos.11 and 13 in First Appeal 2667 of 2007. Mr. Pratik Sakseria with Mr. Jay Kansara i/b M/s. Paras Kuhad & Associates for Applicants in C.A. 5148 of 2008. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 3rd April, 2009. P.C. : 1. The First Appeals have been placed for Speaking to the Minutes of the Order. 2. The First Appeals have already been disposed of by the Court by an order dated 27th February, 2009. Subsequent to the disposal of the Appeals by consent of parties, there has been an acrimonious exchange of correspondence between Advocates and an allegation has been made that one of the learned counsel had misled the Court during the course of the proceedings. An allegation has been made against the learned counsel in a letter dated 10th March, 2009 addressed by M/s. Hariani and Company. In the letter dated 10th March, 2009 a statement has been made in regard to the proceedings which took place before this Court during the course of the hearing of Civil Application 4905 of 2008 in First Appeal 2667 of 2007. By a further letter dated 30th March, 2009, M/s. Hariani & Company clarified that the statement made in the previous letter should not be construed as an allegation or insinuation personally against the counsel. In view of the clarification which was issued on 30th March, 2009, it is only to be hoped and expected that while parties litigate in pursuing their rights, a measure of dignity is observed in respect of the position of counsel appearing on behalf of either of the parties. 3. Counsel who appear before the Court act as officers of the Court and in the highest traditions of the Court, it is only fair that parties should observe a sense of decorum and dignity while dealing with the lawyers who appear in the proceedings. Insofar as this Court is concerned, the hearing of the First Appeals took place in an atmosphere free of acrimony. The Court was assisted fairly and with a sense of objectivity by learned counsel appearing for all the parties to the proceedings and there was absolutely no occasion for this Court to observe that any of the learned counsel had attempted to mislead the Court. It would be necessary to record that the learned junior counsel against whom the allegation was made had, as a matter of fact, not addressed the Court at any stage nor had he tendered any documents in the Court. This position is accepted by all the counsel present before the Court at the hearing today and the clarification ensues by consent. 4. With the aforesaid clarification, it is only to be hoped that the acrimonious correspondence between the parties in this regard should be put to rest. ****