When a matter is part heard, to take precipitatory action is nothing short of contempt of court
MATHEWS NEDUMPARA
ADVOCATES
101,Gundecha Chamber, Nagindas Master Road, fort, Mumbai – 400 001.
Email id: nedumparaassociates@gmail.com Contact No. 9447165650/9820535428
=====================================================================================
To, 12.09.2025
1. Raval Shah & Co.
Advocate for ICICI Bank
Building no. 5-7, Rajabahadur Mansion, Homi Modi street, fort, Mumbai – 400 023.
2. Yahya Batatawala
Advocate for IRP
Office no. 311, 3rd Floor, Jolly Bhavan No. 1, Vitthaldas, Thackersay Marg, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020.
3. Gaurang Chhotalal Shah,
Resolution Professional,
Flat No. 204, A Wing, Raj Vaibhav 1 Chs, Dhankar Wadi, Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali (w), Mumbai – 400 067
also at: 1221, Maker Chambers V, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021.
4. Shri. Sunil Waghmare,
Senior Inspector of Police,
Rabale Police Station,
Thane-Belapur Road, Rabale, Navi Mumbai – 400701.
5. Shri Pankaj Dahane
Deputy Commissioner of Police
through Incharge Police
Hanuman Shinde
Vashi Police Station
1st Floor, Plot no. 180, Sector 19C, Near Y J PetrolPump, above APMC Police Station , Zone 1, APMC Market, Vashi- 400 703.
6. Shri Milind Bharamber
Commissioner of Police
Opposite RBI, Sector nno. 10, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 400 614.
7. Smt. Rashmi Shukla
Director General of Police
Maharshtra State Police Headquarters, Shhaid Bhagat Singh Road, Colaba, Mumbai – 400 005.
8. Chief Secretary,
Government of Maharashtra
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.
9. Secretary to the Government of India
Ministry of MSME,
New Delhi.
10. Shri Rajesh Pathak
Secretary, TDB
New Delhi.
11. The Secretary to the Government of India
Ministry of Science and Technolgy,
Government of India ,
New Delhi
( Ministry Incharge of TDB)
Sir,
I am surprised to come across your email dated 12.9.2025 addressed to nedumparaassociates@gmail.com informing me that the W.P (l) no. 14829 of 2025 which was part heard today/adjourned to 16.9.2025. I myself represented Mrs. Manisha Mehta and am fully aware of what had transpired before the division bench headed by Justice Riyaz Chagla leading to his recusal leaving me with no option than to move the alternative bench headed by Justice Shyam Suman. I had to seek a listing of the case inspite of the court being vacated due to a bomb scare because the IRP along with the police came to take forceful possession of my client’s assets of the company inspite of the oral direction of the bench headed by Justice Riyaz Chagla not to take possession.
A lawyer’s language ought always to be decorous and courteous, especially when addressing a fellow lawyer. Therefore, I refrain from employing strong language. Your client has caused you to send an email to be as aforesaid with malicious and ulterior purpose. There was no need to write to me at all to tell me that the case stands adjourned to 16.9.2025. The only purpose seems to be to emphasis that the court had not passed any specific order of injunction protecting my client from dispossession. When a matter is part heard and adjourned for further hearing, there is no need for a court to pass an order granting or declining injunction. The purpose of the hearing is to decide whether an order of injunction ought to be granted or not and such order will be passed at the end of the hearing, after all parties have been heard, either then and there or after being reserved.
Though in your email the first addressee is my law firm a copy thereof has been send to many others. The hidden purpose of your client is to commit mischief, to take possession of my client’s properties before 3pm on 16.9.2025 to when the case is adjourned for further hearing.
To take possession, nay, even contemplating doing so, amounts to contempt of court. When a case is part heard and when the court is fully in seisin of the matter, it is an upfront to the authority and majesty of the court, as also the law, to proceed to dispossess my client. The very contemplation to do so is unbecoming of a public authority because to do so is only to prevent my client from procuring orders at the hands of the court which the court may grant if she is entitled.
In my practice spanning over 4 decades, I have come across only one instance, where the Kerala High Court in 1993 came heavily on a public authority when it took precipitatory action when the matter was part heard. It would be preposterous for me to have to cite judgments for such instances seldom happen.
The Supreme Court in Delh Development Authority v.s Skipper Construction (1996) 4 SCC 622 in unmistakable terms stated that “Even without a specific injunction, any act that tends to interfere with the due course or prejudices a party may amount to contempt”. In Surya Vadanan v.s State of Tamil Nadu 2015 (5) SCC 450, the Supreme Court held that “Court proceedings cannot be permitted to become a mockery by permitting any action which renders the lis infructuous or ineffective” . The Delhi High Court in Ravindra Singh v.s Financial Commissioner , held “When the Court is seized of the matter and has commenced hearing, the status quo ought to be maintained ,and any unilateral action by any one party defeats the judicial process”. The Kerala High Court in P Radakrishnan v.s State of Kerala held, “It is a settled principle that when a matter is sub judice and part – heard, no action should be taken which makes the adjudication meaningless. Such an act is nothing short of contempt of the court’s authority”.
When a matter is part heard, to take precipitatory action is nothing short of contempt of court
With kind regards,
Yours Sincerely,
MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA