The defendant allegedly made false submissions in the high court as well as apex court during the hearing of the suit.
Mumbai: A Bombay high court judge has asked the Chief Justice for directions to initiate suo motu action against the defendant in a suit for criminal contempt after the defendant made false submissions in the high court as well as the Supreme Court during the hearing of the suit.
Justice S.J. Kathawala was hearing a suit filed by Rajendra Saxena wherein he had sought directions from the high court to restore to him a flat at Andheri for which he had paid Rs 93 lakh and was to pay the remaining Rs 13.5 lakh on completing the deal with the owner, Sharda Ratnam. However, as Ms Ratnam refused to complete the deal he approached the court.
After the first hearing, the court had restrained Ms Ratnam from creating third party rights, which she agreed. However, in 2015 Ms Ratnam had mortgaged the flat with Bank of India following which the court directed the court receiver to take possession of the flat. When Ms Ratnam assured the court that she would get the flat released, the court allowed her time. After the Bank of India officials informed the court that the documents had been handed over to Ms Ratnam the judge directed the court receiver to take possession of the flat and asked Ms Ratnam to deposit the amount received by her from Mr Saxena in the court. She challenged the order in the Supreme Court, which was upheld but vacated when her cheque was dishonoured.
On January 31, 2017, Pagarav Patel was added as applicant as he had possession of the flat documents after he paid off Ms Ratnam’s mortgage in 2015. The court asked him to deposit the documents in court. However, on comparing them with documents submitted by Ms Ratnam in 2015 it came to light that she had submitted coloured photocopies.
After Ms Ratnam’s alleged fraud was exposed she fled from court and sent a message to the court through her lawyer stating that “she had been trapped and the whole hearing was a set up; she cannot be forced into an entrapment; the Judge is prejudiced and he is forcing her for something which is not the truth; that this is a clear set up and that the Judge is aware; she does not trust the orders passed by this Court and its ridiculous judgments.”