In a significant judicial development, Justice Madhav J. Jamdar of the Bombay High Court has alleged that a deliberate attempt was made to frame him by certain advocates involved in ongoing contempt proceedings. The Court has directed the Malabar Hill Police Station to conduct an enquiry into suspicious phone calls made to his wife by Advocate Partho Sarkar under the pretext of a property deal. The judge linked these calls to past orders passed against Advocates Mathews Nedumpara and Vijay Kurle, suggesting a broader conspiracy aimed at tarnishing the image of the judiciary.
Background of the Case:
The matter arises out of Interim Application No. 195 of 2025 in Writ Petition No. 3707 of 2022, filed by Sabina Lakdawala against Feroze Y. Lakdawala and others. The litigation primarily concerns compliance with a maintenance order passed by the City Civil Court in Mumbai.
On 12 March 2025, the High Court had accepted an undertaking from the respondents to clear arrears of maintenance by 31 March 2025. When the undertaking was breached, the Court passed further orders on 2 April 2025, again accepting a second undertaking for payment of ₹8,00,000 within two weeks. The non-compliance of this second undertaking prompted further hearings.
During proceedings on 17 April 2025, Advocate Mathews Nedumpara made statements that the Court found offensive and contemptuous, including: “I am not the slave of the Court.” The judge noted that these remarks were made after the Court had directed an enquiry into the conduct of Advocate Vijay Kurle, a known associate of Mr. Nedumpara.
Allegation of Conspiracy and Attempt to Frame the Judge:
In a detailed order dated 29 April 2025, Justice Jamdar recorded a series of events involving phone calls made by Advocate Partho Sarkar to his wife on 22 and 23 April 2025. Mr. Sarkar posed as a prospective buyer of the judge’s jointly-owned flat listed on the NoBroker portal.
The Court noted that Mr. Sarkar insisted on closing the deal urgently and did not disclose his identity as an advocate even after being informed that he was speaking to a sitting judge. Justice Jamdar stated:
“It is further significant to note that when I informed Mr. Sarkar, on phone that I am a Judge of Bombay High Court and entire consideration would be accepted by cheque, he had not disclosed that he is also a practicing Advocate of this Court. Thus, it is very clear that an attempt is made to frame this Court.”
“Thus, it is clear that an attempt is made to frame this Court, as this Court had passed order against Mr. Vijay Kurle. In fact, the statement made by Mr. Nedumpara that he was insulted by this Court and he is not slave of this Court and further action of Mr. Nedumpara, learned Counsel to run away from this Court when this Court was considering his conduct, all these things are made with an intention to humiliate and browbeat this Court and tarnish image of this Court. It is also required to be noted that Mr. Partho Sarkar carried on conversation for 2 days i.e. on 22nd April 2025 and 23rd April 2025 in such a manner that the same would appear to be a genuine transaction to be finalized within short time.”
The Court further remarked:
“After the conversation with him was over, within 2-3 minutes, I realised that the said laughter was not natural and therefore I became suspicious… it was found that the picture was of Advocate Mr. Sarkar.”
The judge viewed this incident in the context of recent judicial actions taken against Mr. Kurle and Mr. Nedumpara and concluded that the timing of the calls indicated a coordinated plan to create a misleading or compromising situation.
Reference to Past Conduct and Supreme Court Observations:
Justice Jamdar cited past contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court involving Mr. Nedumpara and Mr. Kurle, particularly the decisions in:
- National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency & Reforms v. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 687
- Mathews Nedumpara, In Re, (2019) 19 SCC 454
- Vijay Kurle, In Re, (2021) 13 SCC 616
These judgments had recorded findings of repeated attempts by these advocates to browbeat the court, misuse judicial processes, and scandalise the judiciary.
The Court reiterated that Mr. Nedumpara had previously given an undertaking to the Supreme Court that he would not repeat such conduct before any court, including the Bombay High Court.
Police Investigation Ordered:
Taking serious note of these developments, Justice Jamdar directed the Senior Inspector of Malabar Hill Police Station to conduct an enquiry into:
- The phone calls made by Advocate Partho Sarkar to the judge’s wife on 22, 23, and 24 April 2025
- An earlier call made by Mr. Sarkar on 29 October 2023
The enquiry report is to be submitted to the Registrar General of the Bombay High Court within three weeks.
Matter Placed Before Chief Justice:
Given the request made in a pursis filed by Advocate Sarkar that the judge should not hear proceedings concerning him, Justice Jamdar referred to the Supreme Court’s observation in Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. S. Teja Singh, (1953) 2 SCC 571, which held that a judge personally attacked in contempt may still hear the matter if it is a case of contempt in the face of the court.
Nevertheless, Justice Jamdar directed that papers be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court to decide whether the matter should be assigned to another bench.
