Thelma Menezes, TOI November 14, 1988

Contin

· udge interfer

Di

tice Lentin that in the presence of Judge Shah, the advocates of Seaface ruary 19 let!er became part of the court Builders had threatened his daughter.
recard of e suit. The complaint said He accused the judge of telling Miss when Judge Shah read the letter on Thelna Menezes with "a sarcastic February 26 he informed the parties look" that she should settle with the that he had not assured the high court builders. The judge was accused of that he would extend the stay beyond being in league with the builders.
March 1. The judge s0ll:ght a copy.of The lengthy letter went on to relate the letter which was gIven by MiSS an incident which occurred on FebruMenezes, who was present in the court ary 14, 1987, Mr Menezes said on that .on behalf of her father. The letter was day the 13-year-old child of his elder taken on record and the judge granted daughter, Lygia, was alone at her home an extension till . !arch 5. in Goa. He said the builders' men The plaintiff complained to Mr Jus- reached Goa that day and forced the

Page I



girl to eat 30 tablets -' Seafare B pills), The girl's parents eq the Cl later only to find their da e, "''ere '" g conscious. ent bungaio Mr Menezes said his da e same site where phoned him and requested that e ser. e ungalow would be som~ injections from Bomba). He cost along with an amo added that he explained the situation Dur'..ng the course of e to Mr Justice Desai who was kind eight-page letter dated "enough to phone Goa judges to" delivered to Mr Justice Pra attend to his grand daughter. The letter Justice Tated. Mr Menez~ said the judges were at the bedside of the signature on it was his the ailing girl. had not prepared the letter The litigant said he thanked "God asked anyone else to do so.
and Mr Justice Desai and my family The letter said Mr Men= and 1 can never forget Mr Justice old man and that he had k Desai". He expressed the view that had with happenings in the co Mf- Justice Desai not requested the his daughter, Miss Thelma.
judges of the Goa bench, no one would been given power of atto .
probably have attended to his only Mr Justice Daud was accused grand daughter since some doctors and Mr Menezes to settle v.ith chemists were on strike that day in in violation of develop Goa. rules. The letter said . J Mr Menezes approached the high had declined to hear "e court again to appeal against the order the judge had been part · of Judge Shah. The appeal came up bench which dismissed tl:.e before Mr Justice S. M. Daud who by Mr Menezes last. ear.
adjourned it to March 28. On that day this dismissal that he made the following order: "I am iold proached the Supre e C that Mr Menezes has complained to the The letter, addressed chief justice that 1 am pressurising him Pratap with a cop! to to compromise the matter. This being accused the judges the position, I don't think it proper to coQnsel for Mr .
continue retaining the appeal with unwilling to hear me". instead keen The appeal was assigned to Mr with the buil Justice Shah who adjourned it to April judg~ were 6. He issued an order on that day which would issue n said that "in my opinion the appeal can contempt of coon.
be more advantageously heard by The judps were bench of two judg~". were following w59Dle With two judges having taken the procedure in the appeal. "The matter...offtheir files, it-canre up Defore wondered whether there a division bench. Mr Justice S. C. method in this madn Pratap and Mr Justice A. D. Tated said he had noted in their April 25 order that the hands of quite a "litigation had a long and chequered been forced to g .
history and had grown almost into a once.
banian tree ",ith bra.nch~ in the court He assured tha of small causes, the city civil court, the apex court again If r.
high court and for a brief spell in the not bucIde under supreme court" ure from "unscrup The division bench felt that the reasons of "judicial representation made by Mr Menezes Menezes hoped that the before the apex court was not correct prevail.
since he knew all along that the height The division bench agreed of the building would be more than 50 CQunsel for the builders that the e feet and agreed in 1980 to a space of 19 was a prima facie case of gross feet between his house and the build- tempt of court. The judg~ ordered ing. The judg~ felt it would nor be a notice be issued to Mr Menezes ~ unfair to say that the liberty obtained the Contempt of Courts Act.
by Mr Menezes from the supreme Mr Gupte, president of the ci . _ court was based on a representation not court bar association, told this true to the best of his knowledge. Such that the evidence on record sugg a representation could not be honest or that interference had taken place bona fide, they said. felt in the circumstances the confi. - _ The judges said at this stage they tial correspondence raised seve would not like to go into the findings. sues. He noted that Mr Menez~ .
of judge Shah that Mr Menezes was made a number of complaints to guilty of abuse of process of court, high court, some of them open!) co. ' suppression of facts and of filing liti- cal of judges of the two courts.
gation "to blackmail the builders and He called for an open inquiry in extort monies." They however held matter on the ground that j that the appeal was not one which should not only be done but also warranted interference. to be done. Other lawyers at the The bench said Judge Shah's order civil court wondered how an ordins:
was a well-reasoned one and an ex- litigant mustered the courage to ei ercise of sound judicial discretion. The make complaints a~nst or write judges felt that there hltd been a ters to judges likely to rule against detailed and serious application of It was the view of the advocates tha mind on the part of the trial court all those holding high office, includ1r.g judge. The appeal was dismissed and judges, were accountable and that If e Mr ~ienez~ as a.sted t inform his hi er 'udiciarv had to maintain " opponents if he went in appeal. reputatIon for mtegrl . and fair pia; .
The judges recommended to Mr would not be possible to ignore .' e Menez~ that he accept the offer made qu~tions raised by this case.





Did judge interfere in eity suit?

Mr Menezes and what the consequences of this action were, the letter ALLEGA nONS that a judge of said.
the Bombay high court, in the Ten dll;Ys later, Ihe chief justice, exercise of his administrative through his secreta')',Mr K. H. JOShi, jurisdiction might have interfered informed the association that t,~e sub, ' d' f ,. Ject referred to related to purely with the proc.ee 0 a SUi.t In confidential administrative matters".
the Bombay city Ctvrl and seSSlOns He regretted that no correspondence court have caused concern among between judicial ofllcers of the two advocates of the lower court. courts could be furnished.
Some of the advocates wrote a Among the conSiderations which conlidl ntialletter on August 19 to the concerned the IIdvocates was the chit f Justice of the high court, Mr J usl irc 1=hittatosh Mookherjee, through the president of their bar assodation, Mr N. Y. Gupte. The letter said that from the record it appeared that the superior court, on its administrative side, had intervened in a pending suit filed by a Mr Nicholas Menezes against the Bombay municipal corporation and Mis. Seaface Builders.
The litigation related to a plot of land at Juhu village in Bombay. The value of the land was then tentatively estimated to be around Rs 30 lakhs.
The main dispute between the parties related to how much space ought to be left between the house of the plaintiff and a building Seaface Buildcrs poposed to put up on the pllH, The letter said Ih('IT "hilS lll'rn extensive corrl'spond 'I judge or two of tIll' !'Ily !'Ivil (oufl on one hand and J (OPICS 0 this correspondence so for being looked into. It would appear that they could instruct themselves of that he called for a report and he th oeedure adopted by the high received the report from the concerned co in dealing administratively with judge vi7. Judge Arvind Shah. Sinc p ding judicial matters. The oar as· iso wanted to know il then' r uS!lrr .('ntm w s m'llrmr( uy I (' I (Ill1lelnrd Illd r Ihnt he (Illd e Arvind was any Inll'l vI'nlion in Ih 1111 frill h~ .·h h) hn 110 1110110 nlrlllird Ihr t Y ______________.... ollhl' 0l'c·oppl'al, Mr Justin' I ,('11 It II is of Ihl' vieW · Foreign capital 3 that the matter may b trealed liS · Women's plan 4 closed.
· TV, Weather 5 "If you still have any difficulty, you · China's GATT case 7 are requested to write to Mr Justice · On Nehru 8 Lentin or, ifso advised, see him further · Male's headache 9 in connection with your complaints." · Commercial 10, 11 The letter was produced in the court · Sports 12, 13 of Judge Shah, who had heard the · Dowry tragedy 15 notice of motion taken out in the suit · U,S,-Korea equation 16 at the city civil court, by the daughter of the plaintiff, Mis Thelma Menezes.
It was taken on record. The day-to-day record of th~ s,uit, called, a r07nama.

By RAJIV W AGH

On Other Pag

More News in Section 2

Gandhi, counsel for Seaface Builders, expressed surprise how such a -letter could be written to a litigant. The advocate is also mentioned as having said that Mr Justice Desai and Mr Justice Lentin were bringing pressure on Judge Shah to extend the stay of Ihe operation of the ,latter's order dated January 19.
What also startled the lawyers was another entry dated January 18 in the roznama where the judge recorded that "the judgement in this case was con-

Justice M. L. Pendse dismissed it on the ground that "the record showed that Mr Menezes had conceded in the suit an open space of 19 feet instead of which the open space is admittedly 24 feet".
Mr Menezes then approached the Supreme Coun and on August 27, 1987, the coun passed an order which gave rise to another round of litigation right from the city civil court. The apex court said the question considered by the high court appeared to be related to a building whose height was only 50 feet. The city civil court was directed to dispose of any application made to it without reference to the observations of the high court. For some reason, Seaface Builders could not be heard by the apex coun. It is interesting to note that the height of the building being 50 feet or less was an incorrect argument raised by Mr Menezes and he came in for considerable criticism from a division bench of the high coun when 11 hI lIrd the mailer this year.
how«l Ilwl tll' h'lght would only be 50 feet. The decree made it clear that the. opep space to be left between the two structures would be t 9 and not 40 fl'('t, The sanctlon('d plan of 1111'

A Il'w IIlonths 11111'1 Ihls IIHh'I, thl' har a~SOClHlIon k:1I nt thut Judge Mehta's duties would be changed, In a letter dated January 28 this year, written by Mr Gupte in his official capacity to the principal judge, Mr S. A.
Kirtikar, the bar president said advocates became aware of the impending change in December 1987, A specific request was made that the judge's duties should not be changed.
When the court re-opened after the Christmas vacation the status quo was maintained. But in mid·Januarv. the principal judge informed the as'socia· . . 1. I I.. I

The high court has administrative jurisdiction over subordinate ('{)urts, as wel/ as appellate jurisdiction over the orders and JI/(}reedings of these courts, Sometimes, an occasion arises whell the exercise of administrative jurisdiction may impingl' 1'/,'011 the appel/at I' lurisdiction. There are instances when thl' 111}:Cmt willlw adl'/lt'li 10 approach the high court to remove htl grievances IfI It,I' IUllllllllllraliv(' capacity and there are OCCIl.I'IOIII' when he shol/lr/II/III'


Mr Gupte's letter said it appeared that the step had been taken for "some specific reason" and that there was no tangible reason for it.
Judge Mehta refused to comment on this development but it is reliably understood that the change was effected on instructions of the high court.
Sources told this paper that chief justice Mookhetjee, who took charge of the high court later this year after a stint as acting governor of the state, too care to inform the lower court judge that he should not see the change as an adverse comment on his performance and that his record remained unsullied.
The lower court judge got back his original assignment in June this year, reportedly at the instructions of the chief justice.
Mr Menezes appealed against judge Mehta's order to the high court. Mr Justice V. S. Kotwal by his October 16, 1987, order allowed it. The builders were restrained from continuing construction work of the ouilding begun in 19H6 M lustit'c' Kotwal also dm'cted Ihallill Ulllllath'l Builders by way of costs.
Being of the view that Mr Menezes had filed false and vexatious litigation, the judge said the plaintiff should first d pll\lt th( umount of \ ost in