1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1849 OF 2009 VIMLA JAYCHAND BHANDARI .. PETITIONER Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS Mr. V. Mishra i/b M/s. V. Mishra & Co. for petitioner Mr. Milind More, AGP Mr. Subhash Bane for R-2 to 4 Mr. D. H. Mehta for purchaser. CORAM:-SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED :- 16/12/2009 P.C. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to accept balance amount of loan of Rs. 5,33,127/- from the petitioner and return the documents to the petitioner and that respondents 2 to 5 be restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from her flat being Flat No. 58, 5th floor, Mantri Corner Co-op. Housing Society, Sayani Road Junction, Mumbai 400 025. 2 2. It appears that the petitioner had obtained overdraft facility to the tune of Rs. 4 lakhs from the 2nd respondent Bank and the account was overdrawn to the extent of Rs. 5 lakhs. The petitioner had mortgaged her flat situated at Sayani Road junction as a collateral security with the 2nd respondent. It is not necessary to go into all the facts. Suffice it to say that the petitioner failed to pay the amount and the mortgaged flat was auctioned on 13/8/09. The sale certificate was issued to one Nilesh M. Kudalkar who is not a party to this petition. 3. It appears that the petitioner’s son had filed Writ Petition No. 1848 of 2009 making similar prayers in respect of the same flat. That petition was filed on 12/8/09. On 12/10/09 the said petition was allowed to be withdrawn on the motion made by the counsel for the petitioner. That petition was filed on the original side of this court. 4. Thereafter on 18/11/09 Writ Petition No. 9805 of 2009 was filed by the present petitioner on the appellate side of this court seeking similar reliefs. On 23/11/09 that petition was adjourned by learned Single Judge to 7/12/09 recording statement of the 3 counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will deposit the entire amount in this court within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. The petition appeared on board on 11/12/09. The petitioner was not present in the court. His counsel was also not present. It was pointed out to the court that the petitioner had not deposited the amount as per the order dated 23/11/09. On 11/12/09 that writ petition was, therefore, dismissed for non- prosecution. In that petition the auction purchaser was a party. 5. It appears that on 14/9/09 the petitioner has filed the present petition. However, the petition was not taken up for admission. It was moved before the court presided over by the Chief Justice on 26/11/09. It was adjourned to 27/11/09. In that petition the petitioner did not disclose that she had filed Writ Petition No. 9805 of 2009 seeking similar relief on the appellate side of this court. The Division Bench presided over by the Chief Justice made the following observations:- “From the conduct of the petitioner, we are satisfied that the petitioner has made unholy attempt of not only overreaching the authority of the Court but has even abused the process of law by making 4 misrepresentation. This is a matter which cannot be ignored by the Court. However, before, we pass any further direction, we require the presence of the petitioner in Court on the next date of hearing. Stand over to 1st December, 2009”. 6. The petition was adjourned to 1st December, 2009. On that day the petitioner was present in the court. The Division Bench presided over by the Chief Justice observed that it is hardly disputable that the petitioner has misled the court by filing incorrect affidavits and concurrent proceedings on the same cause of action on the original side as well as on the appellate side of this court without disclosing true facts. Counsel for the petitioner prayed for time to file affidavit to explain the conduct. The petition was adjourned for two weeks to enable the counsel to file affidavit-in-reply. Pursuant to this order affidavit dated 5/12/09 is filed by the petitioner. In that affidavit the petitioner has tendered apology and prayed that she may be allowed to withdraw the petition. Today the counsel for the petitioner has tendered a statement made by the petitioner signed by the petitioner stating that she is tendering unconditional apology and 5 that she may be allowed to withdraw the petition. 7. The petitioner is present in the court. We prima facie feel that all this is done by her advocate. We are, therefore, not inclined to issue contempt notice to her because she appears to have acted under the advice of the advocate. Hence we permit the petitioner to withdraw the petition, however, we direct that copy of this order be forwarded to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for appropriate action in accordance with law, if found necessary. Bar Council will consider the matter independently and in accordance with law. 8. We feel that this is a fit case for awarding exemplary costs. Hence, we direct the petitioner to pay costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/- to respondent 2 within a period of eight weeks from today. 9. The petition is allowed to be withdrawn and is disposed of as such. (Smt.Ranjana Desai, J.) (Smt. Mridula Bhatkar, J.) 6 7