Bombay High Court raps Sanjay Raut for missing hearing
Judge says he would be made to ‘remain present in court’ if he misses next hearing.
Judge says he would be made to ‘remain present in court’ if he misses next hearing.
Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut drew the Bombay high court’s wrath on Monday after he failed to appear before it and depose himself as a witness in a suit filed by Jaidev Thackeray, son of Sena patriarch late Bal Thackeray, over his father’s will. After his lawyer said that he was not in Mumbai, Justice Gautam Patel warned that if Mr Raut remains absent at the next hearing, he would be made to “remain present in the court”. The court would decide the next date for Mr Raut’s appearance on October 27.
As a stern warning to Mr Raut, also the editor of Sena mouthpiece Saamana, the court stated, “This is not done. We had decided in the month of August and fixed today’s date for his deposition. If he is avoiding it, we will make him remain present in the court.”
On August 26, the high court had issued summons to Mr Raut and Saamana photographer Rajesh Waradkar to depose before the court on Monday. While Mr Raut failed to appear, Mr Waradkar presented himself before the court on Monday. Jaidev’s lawyer examined Mr Waradkar to bring on record a photograph of a private event attended by Bal Thackeray. Saamana had published the photograph on December 6, 2011. Presnt in the photograph are international wrestler Khali, Bal Thackeray, Jaidev Thackeray, Uddhav Thackeray and Aditya Thackeray. Mr Waradkar confirmed that he had clicked the picture.
Jaidev has challenged Bal Thackeray’s last will, made on December 13, 2011, which did not give him anything but bequeathed a substantial share of the property to Uddhav.
Jaidev, whose relations with Bal Thackeray were strained, questioned the validity of the said will claiming that his father could not have left him out of his will.
Against Jaidev’s petition, Uddhav had filed “a probate petition” in the HC to get his father’s will certified. Jaidev has opposed the probate. The court then turned the probate proceeding into a “testamentary suit”.
