{"id":189254,"date":"2008-02-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-kirtilal-mehta-ors-vs-vijay-kirtilal-mehta-ors-on-18-february-2008"},"modified":"2015-09-29T12:27:03","modified_gmt":"2015-09-29T06:57:03","slug":"kishor-kirtilal-mehta-ors-vs-vijay-kirtilal-mehta-ors-on-18-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-kirtilal-mehta-ors-vs-vijay-kirtilal-mehta-ors-on-18-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"Kishor Kirtilal Mehta & Ors vs Vijay Kirtilal Mehta & Ors on 18 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kishor Kirtilal Mehta & Ors vs Vijay Kirtilal Mehta & Ors on 18 February, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: A Kabir<\/div>\n
Bench: Altamas Kabir, Lokeshwar Singh Panta<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  330 of 2008\n\nPETITIONER:\nKishor Kirtilal Mehta & Ors\n\nRESPONDENT:\nVijay Kirtilal Mehta & ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/02\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nALTAMAS KABIR & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 330 OF 2008
\n@ S.L.P. (CRIMINAL) NO.357 of 2007<\/p>\n
Altamas Kabir, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\t  Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tBy a Deed of Trust dated 5th July, 1978, one
\nKirtilal Manilal Mehta,  the late father of Kishor
\nKirtilal Mehta, the appellant No.1 herein, created
\na Trust  known as Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical
\nTrust and appointed Kishor Kirtilal Mehta,
\nMrs.Charu Kishor Mehta the appellant No.2 and Mrs.
\nRekha Haresh Sheth, the sister of the appellant
\nNo.1, as Permanent Trustees thereof.  The said
\nTrust established the Lilavati Hospital  which is
\na highly-reputed hospital in Mumbai  and is
\nconsidered to be one of the best hospitals in
\nIndia today.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tClause 17 of the Trust Deed stipulates that as
\nfar as possible only members of the Settlor’s
\nfamily are to be appointed as Trustees.  However,
\nthe respondent No.1, Vijay Kirtilal Mehta, the
\nelder brother of the appellant No.1 and son of the
\nSettlor, was neither appointed as a Permanent
\nTrustee nor as a Trustee by the Settlor when the
\nTrust was created.  According to the appellants,
\nit was at the instance of the appellant No.1 that
\nthe respondent No.1 was appointed as a Trustee on
\n22nd July, 1990, for a period of five years, as
\nprovided under the Trust Deed. The case of the
\nappellants is that since the Trust Deed further
\nstipulates that except for Permanent Trustees all
\nother Trustees could be appointed for a term of
\nfive years only and for a maximum of three terms,
\nthe respondent No.1 ceased to be a Trustee after
\nthe expiry of the third term on and from 22nd July,
\n2005.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tAccording to the appellants, Mrs.Charu Kishor
\nMehta, the appellant No.2, thereafter issued a
\nnotice on 5th April, 2006, for holding a meeting of
\nthe Trustees in order to fill up the vacancy
\ncaused by the cessation of the respondent No.1 as
\na Trustee of the aforesaid Trust. Mrs. Rekha
\nHaresh Sheth did not attend the meeting held on 8th
\nApril, 2006, but addressed a letter to the
\nappellant No.2 through her advocate enclosing a
\ncopy of the Minutes of a meeting of the Trust
\npurported to have been held on 22nd July, 1995,
\nwherein Mr. Vijay Kirtilal Mehta, the respondent
\nNo.1, was shown to have been re-appointed as a
\nPermanent Trustee. The Minutes also indicated that
\nthe appellants, Kishore Kirtilal Mehta and Mrs.
\nCharu Kishore Mehta, had signed the said Minutes.
\nThe appellants denied having signed the said
\nMinutes and questioned the genuineness of the same
\nand contended that the said Minutes had been
\nfabricated in order to circumvent the Resolution
\nadopted by the Permanent Trustees on 8th April,
\n2006, declaring the cessation of the trusteeship
\nof the respondent No.1.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tIn any event, by his letter dated 8th April,
\n2006 the respondent No.1 asked the appellant No.2
\nnot to hold any meeting on 8th April, 2006,
\npursuant to her notice dated 5th April, 2006.  The
\nappellants were also informed that Niket Mehta,
\nson of the respondent No.1, had been appointed a
\nPermanent Trustee and the respondent No.1 had been
\nre-appointed as a Permanent Trustee.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tFrom the materials on record it appears that
\nin regard to the Minutes of the meeting of the
\nTrustees allegedly held on 21st July, 1995, a
\nChange Report was filed with the office of the
\nAssistant Charity Commissioner, Mumbai, on 10th
\nApril, 2006, to record the cessation of
\ntrusteeship of Prashant Kishore Mehta and the re-
\nappointment of Rajiv Kishore Mehta as Trustee of
\nthe above Trust.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tCertain other facts subsequently surfaced from
\ncorrespondence addressed by the Heads of the
\ndifferent departments of the Lilavati Hospital to
\nthe appellant No.2 which led to the filing of a
\ncomplaint by the appellant No.1 before the
\nEconomic Offences Wing of the Bombay Police on 3rd
\nMay,2006, against the Lilavati Hospital Trust and
\nothers for having allegedly committed offences
\npunishable under Sections 120-B, 465, 467, 468,
\n471, 474 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tSince, according to the appellants, no action
\nwas taken by the Economic Offences Wing of the
\nBombay Police on the basis of the complaint dated
\n3.5.2006,  the appellant No.1 filed a complaint
\nbefore the Additional Chief Metropolitan
\nMagistrate (4th Court), Girgaum, Mumbai, on
\n13.5.2006, being CC No.24\/M\/2006, against the
\nrespondent No.1 and others under Section 120-B,
\n465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal
\nCode alleging that the accused persons had
\ncommitted forgery and had fabricated various
\ndocuments and records of  the Trust, including the
\nResolution alleged to have been adopted by the
\nTrustees on 22.7.1995.  By an order dated
\n22.5.2006 the learned Magistrate directed the
\nGamdevi Police Station to investigate into the
\nallegations contained in the complaint filed by
\nthe appellant No.1 under Section 156(3) of the
\nCode of Criminal Procedure. The Gamdevi Police
\nStation registered First Information Report MECR
\nNo.5\/2006 on 27.5.2006 on the basis of the said
\ncomplaint.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tThe above complaint was followed by an
\napplication filed by the appellant No.1 on
\n18.5.2006 under Section 94 of the Code for
\nissuance of a Search Warrant for search and
\nseizure of the Minutes of the alleged meetings of
\nthe Board of Trustees as well as the letter dated
\n21.7.1996 which was alleged to have been forged.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tSoon thereafter, the appellant No.1 filed Suit
\nNo.2444 of 2006 before the City Civil Court at
\nBombay on 30th May, 2006, praying for a declaration
\nthat the Minutes of the meeting alleged to have
\nbeen held on 22.7.1995 and the Resolution adopted
\ntherein, were forged and fabricated. Admittedly,
\nthe said suit is still pending disposal.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tAt the time of arguments in respect of the
\napplication for interim reliefs prayed for by the
\nappellant No.1 in the said suit, the counsel for
\nthe Trust tendered a copy of the Minutes Book of
\nthe Trust containing the Minutes of the meetings
\nof the Trust alleged to have been held between 31st
\nJanuary 1993 and 31st March, 1997. According to the
\nappellants herein, that was the first time that
\nthey had come across the said Minutes Book. It is
\nthe case of the appellants that on examination of
\nthe Minutes Book, which was produced on behalf of
\nthe Trust, they found that the entire Minutes Book
\ncontained forgeries and fabrication. A detailed
\naffidavit was filed by the appellant No.1 in that
\nregard. It may be mentioned at this stage that the
\nprayer made by the appellant No.1 for issuance of
\na search warrant was refused by the Magistrate by
\nhis order dated 15.6.2006, inasmuch as, the
\ninvestigation under Section 156(3) of the Code was
\nalso in progress.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tOn 19.6.2006 Smt. Rekha Sheth filed an
\naffidavit in Suit No.2444 of 2006 pending before
\nthe City Civil Court, Bombay, inter alia,
\ndisclosing that she was in possession of the three
\noriginal letters dated 21.7.1994.  Thereafter, in
\nconnection with the investigation under Section
\n156(3) of the Code the Gamdevi Police Station
\nissued a notice dated 24.7.2006 to the appellant
\nNo.1 directing him to produce the following
\ndocuments:\n<\/p>\n
i)\tMinutes Book of the meetings of the
\nBoard of Trustees for the period
\n31.1.1993 till date,<\/p>\n
ii)\tResolution passed on 22.7.1995 (3
\noriginals); and<\/p>\n
iii)\tLetter dated 21.7.1995 signed by the
\nappellants herein and Rekha Sheth (3
\noriginals).\n<\/p>\n
13.\tSubsequent to the said notice, the respondent
\nNo.1, Vijay Kirtilal Mehta filed Criminal Writ
\nPetition No.1581 of 2006 before the High Court of
\nBombay against the order dated 2.5.2006 passed by
\nthe Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and
\nalso against order dated 24.7.2006 and prayed for
\nquashing of the said two orders as also the FIR
\ndated 27.5.2006.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tThe writ petition was listed before the High
\nCourt of Bombay on 27.5.2006 and after hearing the
\ncounsel for the parties the High Court passed an
\norder directing the respondent No.1 and the
\nLilavati Hospital Trust to permit the police
\nauthorities to inspect the documents, impugned by
\nthe appellants, at the premises of the Lilavati
\nHospital and to furnish copies thereof to the said
\nauthorities. Interestingly, the appellants herein
\nwho were vitally interested in the subject-matter
\nof the proceedings, were not made parties in the
\nCriminal Writ Petition No.1581 of 2006 and
\naccordingly the appellants moved an application
\nfor intervention on 4.8.2006.  Inasmuch as, the
\nrespondent No.1 sent certain selected documents
\nonly directly to the Police Station, the
\nappellants herein moved an interlocutory
\napplication No.310 of 2006 in the pending criminal
\nwrit petition. The same was listed for hearing on
\n23.8.2006 and by consent of the counsel appearing
\nfor the parties the High Court appointed the Chief
\nExaminer of Documents, Government of Maharashtra,
\nas Court Commissioner to examine the following
\ndocuments:\n<\/p>\n
i)\tMinutes Book of the meeting of the Trust
\nin respect of the alleged meetings of
\nthe Board of Trustees of the said Trust
\nbetween 31.1.1993 to 31.3.1997 running
\ninto 150 pages;\n<\/p>\n
ii)\t3 Original letters dated 21.7.1995; and\n<\/p>\n
iii)\t3 Original extracts of the Resolution
\ndated 22.7.1995.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tSubsequent to the passing of the said order
\ndated 23.8.2006 the Public Prosecutor moved the High
\nCourt for substitution of the Chief Examiner with
\nthe Additional Chief Examiner and also sought relief
\nto permit the Commissioner to take the documents in
\nquestion  to their laboratory for chemical
\nexamination. By its order dated 8.9.2006  the High
\nCourt while confirming its order of 23.8.2006
\ndirected the respondent No.1 to hand over the
\noriginal documents  as contained in paragraph 4 of
\nthe said order of 23.8.2006 to the Prothonotary and
\nthe Senior Master of the High Court who would then
\ntake the said documents into custody  and seal and
\ndispatch  the same by special messenger to the Chief
\nExaminer of  Documents, M.S. at Pune,  who was
\nappointed as the Commissioner by the Court.  The
\nChief Examiner of Documents was directed not to
\npart with the documents in any manner and to keep
\nthe same in safe custody and after conducting
\nrequired scientific tests on the documents return
\nthe same in a sealed cover by special messenger to
\nthe Prothonotary and the Senior Master  of the Court
\nand to send his opinion within six weeks from the
\ndate of receipt of the documents.  On the documents
\nbeing received back from the Chief Examiner of
\nDocuments, the appellant would be entitled to
\ncollect the same in the presence of the respondents,
\ntheir advocates, the learned Public Prosecutor and
\nthe Investigating Officer.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tThereafter, on 10.11.2006 the matter was once
\nagain listed before a Division Bench of the High
\nCourt comprised of the Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B.
\nMhase and the Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.R.Sathe, when
\nthe letter dated 7.11.2006 from the Chief Examiner
\nof Documents  was brought to the notice of the
\nCourt. Since the said letter is the genesis of the
\npresent proceedings before us the same is reproduced
\nhereinbelow :\n<\/p>\n
“No. HE\/1319\/HW\/PCP\/34\/06\/VVR\/06
\nOffice of the Chief State Examiner of
\nDocuments, C.I.D. M.S., Pune
\nDate  : 07 November, 2006<\/p>\n
To
\nThe Registrar,
\nOriginal Side,
\nProthonotary and Senior Master,
\nHigh Court, Original Side
\nMumbai
\n\t\tRef.\t:\tYour letter No.B\/
\n        16143 dated 6.11.2006<\/p>\n
\t\tSub.\t:\tMisc.Application No.
\n440\/06 in Criminal
\nWrit Petition 581 of
\n2006.\n<\/p>\n
Sir,<\/p>\n
\tThe  additional   documents in
\nthis case have been received in this
\nOffice today i.e. on 7.11.2006.  As
\nper the previous order dated 23
\nAugust 2006 the signature
\n(Resolution dated 22 July 95) in the
\nBlue Register  was disputed.\n<\/p>\n
However, the register does not
\ncontain  signatures of Sow. C.K.\n<\/p>\n
Mehta. In the present order, 6
\ndocuments which were sent previously
\nare stated to be admitted. It is,
\ntherefore,  requested to kindly
\ncommunicate as to which signatures
\nof Shri K.K. Mehta and Sow. C.K.\n<\/p>\n
Mehta are disputed and which
\nsignatures are  admitted
\nspecifically so as to enable this
\noffice for the needful.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Hon’ble Lordship may kindly
\nbe requested to grant a further
\nperiod of  about  4 week’s time for
\nexamination after receipt of
\ncomplete clarification.\n<\/p>\n
\tInconvenience caused to the
\nHon’ble Lordship is deeply
\nregretted.\n<\/p>\n
Yours faithfully,<\/p>\n
Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
Chief State Examiner of Documents
\nC.I.D. M.S. Pune<\/p>\n
On the said letter being brought to the notice of
\nthe Court the matter was adjourned till
\n14.11.2006, when, after hearing learned counsel
\nfor the parties, the Division Bench was of the
\nview that since the order of 23.8.2006 had been
\npassed with the consent of the  parties and was
\nsubsequently reaffirmed by order dated 8.11.2006
\nand 2.11.2006, it would be appropriate to place
\nthe matter before the original Bench consisting
\nof the Hon’ble Justice J.N. Patel and the Hon’ble
\nJustice Roshan Dalvi for clarification of their
\nLordships’ order dated 23.8.2006.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tThereafter, the matter was taken up by the
\nlatter Bench on 10.1.2007 on the basis of the letter
\nwritten by the Chief Examiner of Documents on
\n7.11.2006, and, by its order of even date, the
\nHon’ble Judges passed the order which has been
\nimpugned in the present appeal and reads as follows:
\n“CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 310 OF 2006
\nIN
\nCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1581 OF 2006<\/p>\n
Kishor Kirtilal Mehta   …Applicant<\/p>\n
Vs.\n<\/p>\n
Vijay Kirtilal Mehta & ors.\t..Respondents<\/p>\n
Mr. M.S. Mohite for the applicant
\nMr. S.R.Borulkar, P.P. for the State<\/p>\n
\t\tCORAM : \tJ.N. PATEL &
\n\t\t\t\tROSHAN DALVI, JJ<\/p>\n
\t\tDATE\t  :\t10TH January, 2007<\/p>\n
P.C.\n<\/p>\n
1.\tThe matter has been placed before our
\nBench to clarify our order dated 23.8.2006
\nwhich was modified by passing further order
\non 8.9.2006. The question for seeking
\nclarification arose because a communication
\ndated 7.11.2006 was received by the
\nRegistrar of this Court from the
\nCommissioner appointed by this Court i.e.
\nthe Chief State Examiner of Documents,
\nC.I.D., M.S. Pune and in which a specific
\nquery has been made that in respect of six
\ndocuments which were sent previously to the
\nCommissioner and stated to be admitted. The
\nCommissioner wanted to know as to which
\nsignatures of Shri K.K. Mehta and Sow C.K.
\nMehta are  disputed and which signatures
\nare admitted specifically so as to enable
\nhis office to do the needful.  Though  such
\na clarification is not required as our
\norder dated 23.8.2006 is very specific with
\nreference to the documents which are
\nrequired to be examined by the
\nCommissioner, but what we find is that one
\nof the intervenor-complainant has stated
\nthat they dispute all the signatures of
\nShri K.K. Mehta in the minute book and of
\nSow C.K. Mehta in three letters and the
\nthree resolutions and for that reason the
\nCommissioner need not, for the present,
\nexamine all the signatures on the minutes
\nbook except relating to the resolution
\ndated 22.07.1995 which is the basis of the
\ncomplaint lodged with Gamdevi Police
\nStation and the three copies of the
\nresolutions and three letters as observed
\nin our order and submit his report as early
\nas possible.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tNeedless to say that the Commissioner
\nwould require specimen signatures of the
\nparties for the purpose of comparison which
\nhave already been forwarded by order dated
\n2.11.2006.\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/-(J.N. Patel,J.)<\/p>\n
Sd\/- (Roshan Dalvi,J.)<\/p>\n
True copy”\n<\/p>\n
17. \tAppearing for the appellant, Dr. A.M. Singhvi
\nsubmitted that by the impugned  order dated
\n10.1.2007 passed in Application No.310\/06 filed in
\nCriminal Writ Petition No.1581 of 2006, the Division
\nBench of the High Court  truncated the directions
\ngiven in its earlier order dated 23.8.2006 though
\nindicating that the same was to clarify the said
\norder of 23.8.2006. Dr. Singhvi submitted that such
\npurported clarification was necessitated on account
\nof the letter dated 7.12.2006 addressed by the
\nCommissioner appointed by the Court to the Registrar
\nraising certain specific queries in respect of six
\ndocuments which had been previously sent to the
\nCommissioner and stated to be admitted. The High
\nCourt further recorded that by the aforesaid  letter
\nthe Commissioner wanted to know as to which
\nsignatures of Shri K.K. Mehta and Sow Charu Kishore
\nMehta were disputed and which signatures were
\nadmitted specifically so as to enable his office to
\ndo the needful.  He also submitted that the learned
\nJudges had then altered the contents of their
\nearlier order dated 23.8.2006 by observing that
\nsince one of the intervenors \/complainants had
\ndisputed all the signatures of Shri K.K. Mehta in
\nthe Minutes Book and that of Charu Kishore Mehta in
\n3 letters and the 3 Resolutions, the Commissioner
\nwas not required for the present to examine all the
\nsignatures in the Minutes Book except those relating
\nto the Resolution dated 22.7.1995, which is the
\nbasis of the complaint lodged with Gamdevi Police
\nStation, together with the 3 copies of the
\nResolutions and 3 letters as observed in the order
\nof 23.8.2006 and to submit his report as early as
\npossible.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tIn support of his aforesaid submission, Dr.
\nSinghvi referred to paragraph 4 of the said order
\ndated 23.8.2006 whereby the Chief Examiner of
\nDocuments, Government of Maharashtra, had been
\nappointed as the Commissioner with directions to
\nexamine the documents to be produced by the
\nrespondent No.1 herein in original, namely;\n<\/p>\n
i)\tMinutes Book  running into 150 pages
\nfor the period 31.1.1993 till
\n31.3.1997;\n<\/p>\n
ii)\tAll the three original letters dated
\n21.7.1995; and<\/p>\n
iii)\tAll 3 original extracts of Resolution
\ndated 22.7.1995.\n<\/p>\n
19.\tDr. Singhvi urged that the said directions  did
\nnot restrict the examination of the Minutes Book
\nonly to the Resolution dated 22.7.1995 to which the
\nimpugned order  dated 10.01.2007 had been confined.
\nHe urged that the directions given in paragraph 4
\nhad to be read with paragraph 7 of the order which
\nprovided that the parties could assist the Hand-
\nwriting Expert in identifying the documents from the
\nMinutes Book which were required to be examined by
\nhim. The directions also provided that so far as
\nitems 2 and 3 were concerned, all the 3 original
\nletters and Resolutions were required to be
\nexamined. Dr. Singhvi contended that paragraph 7 of
\nthe order made it very clear that the parties would
\nbe entitled to identify not only the Resolution
\ndated 22.7.1995, but all such other documents in the
\nMinutes Book which were required to be examined by
\nthe Hand-writing Expert. Dr. Singhvi urged that by
\nthe impugned order the width of the initial order
\nwas sought to be narrowed down only to the
\nResolution of 22.7.1995.\n<\/p>\n
20.\tDr. Singhvi reiterated the stand taken on
\nbehalf of the appellants in Suit No.2444 of 2006
\nbefore the City Civil Court at Bombay, instituted by
\nthe appellant No.1 herein, wherein the Minutes Book
\nof the Trust  containing the minutes of the meetings
\nof the Trust purported to have been held between
\n31.1.1993 to 31.3.1997 was produced. Dr. Singhvi
\nalso reiterated that according to the appellants
\nthat was the first time that they had come across
\nthe said Minutes Book and by looking into the same
\nthey found that the entire Minutes Book contained
\nforgeries and fabrication.  He submitted that it is
\nin that context that a prayer had been made by the
\nappellant No.1 before the Additional Chief
\nMetropolitan Magistrate (4th Court), Girgaum,
\nMumbai, under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure for issuance of a search warrant  for
\nsearch and seizure of the said Minutes Book, but the
\nsame  had been refused by the Magistrate on
\n15.6.2006 on the ground that investigation under
\nSection 156(3) of the Code in connection with CC
\nNo.24\/M\/2006 was also in progress.\n<\/p>\n
21.\tIn this regard, Dr. Singhvi brought to our
\nnotice the photocopies of the recording of the
\nMinutes in the Minutes Book with regard to the
\nmeetings purported to have been held on 31.1.1993
\nand on other dates where the appellant No.1 was
\nshown to be present, although, according to him, he
\nwas not present at such meetings.  From the said
\nminutes of the meeting held on 31.1.1993 and from
\nvarious other minutes, including that of the meeting
\nalleged to have been held on 3.5.1993, wherein the
\nexpression ‘Mumbai’ had been used, although, at the
\nsaid point of time, the usage of the expression
\n‘Bombay’ was still prevalent and had not been
\nsubstituted by the expression ‘Mumbai’. He submitted
\nthat the same would prima facie establish that the
\nsaid Minutes had been fabricated at a much later
\ndate when the State started using the expression
\n‘Mumbai’ in place of ‘Bombay’.  Dr. Singhvi
\nsubmitted  that it is in such context that an
\nexamination of the entire Minutes Book for the
\nperiod in question became necessary and was
\ncontemplated in paragraphs 4 and 7 of the order
\ndated 23.8.2006, and by virtue of the impugned order
\ndated 10.1.2007, the entire purpose of proving the
\nfabrication of the Minutes Book had been rendered
\ninfructuous.\n<\/p>\n
22.\tDr. Singhvi also contended that the letter of
\n7.11.2006 addressed by the Commissioner appointed by
\nthe Court to the Prothonotary and Senior Master of
\nthe High Court, merely required a clarification that
\nsince the Resolution dated 22.7.1995 did not contain
\nthe signature of Charu Kishore Mehta and in the
\norder of 23.8.2006 these documents had been
\npreviously stated to be admitted, it was necessary
\nto know which signatures of Shri K.K. Mehta and Sow.
\nCharu Kishore Mehta were disputed and which
\nsignatures were admitted specifically, so as to
\nenable his office to do the needful.  Dr. Singhvi
\nsubmitted that in the impugned order of 10.1.2007
\nthe High Court observed that since all the
\nsignatures of the said two persons were disputed,
\nthe Commissioner should confine his examination only
\nto the signatures as appearing in the Resolution
\ndated 22.7.1995, thereby truncating  the scope of
\nthe earlier order dated 23.8.2006.\n<\/p>\n
23.\tDr. Singhvi referred to Civil Appeal No.1575 of
\n2007 which had arisen out of suit No.1997 of 2006
\npending before the City Civil Court, Mumbai, wherein
\nappellant No.2, Charu Kishore Mehta,  was the
\nplaintiff. The said suit had been filed in respect
\nof one of the four Resolutions passed by the Board
\nof Trustees of the Lilavati Kiritilal Mehta Medical
\nTrust on 29.4.2006 resolving that she should not
\ninteract  or communicate with employees and\/or
\nconsultants of the Lilavati Hospital and Research
\nCentre and\/or the Trust save and except through the
\nBoard of Trustees of the Trust, and the employees
\nand the consultants  were also informed that they
\nwere not to take into account any instructions
\ndirectly given by Mrs. Mehta to them. Dr. Singhvi
\nsubmitted that while granting leave in respect of
\nthe said appeal this Court had by order dated
\n26.3.2007 come to a conclusion that there was
\nserious dispute between the parties, which could
\nultimately   cause serious difficulties in the
\nrunning of the hospital which was under the
\nmanagement of the Trust. Accordingly, as a temporary
\nmeasure, this Court directed that Dr. Narender
\nTrivedi, Vice-President of the hospital and Dr. K.
\nRamamurthy, Senior Consultant of the hospital, would
\nbe in charge of the hospital and of the day to day
\nrunning of the Hospital and Research Institute. This
\nCourt also directed that the two Administrators
\nwould take all decisions relating to the
\nadministration of the hospital and give a report to
\nthe Board of Trustees every two weeks.  By a
\nsubsequent order dated 20.8.2007 this Court replaced
\nDr. K. Ramamurthy, as Administrator on his
\nexpressing his inability to continue to function as
\nan Administrator due to ill-health and he was
\nreplaced by Mr. Justice A.A. Halbe, a retired Judge
\nof the Bombay High Court, as Joint Administrator
\nalong with Dr. Narendra Trivedi.\n<\/p>\n
24.\tAccording to Dr. Singhvi, a Contempt Petition,
\nbeing No. 125 of 2007, was, thereafter, filed in
\nrespect of the final order passed by this Court
\ndisposing of the appeal on 26.3.2007.  While
\nconsidering the contempt application, this Court
\nwas informed that the suit filed by the appellant
\nNo.2 in the Civil Court, Bombay, had already been
\ndismissed by a Judgment and Order dated 24.9.2007.
\nHowever, while dismissing the suit, the trial court
\nhad continued the order appointing the Joint
\nAdministrators for a period of 10 weeks or until
\nfurther orders of this Court, whichever was earlier.
\nThis Court directed the said order to continue for a
\nfurther period of 10 weeks from 24.9.2007, subject
\nto any interim or final order that might be made in
\nthe appeal from the order dismissing the suit or any
\ncollateral proceedings. The contempt petition was
\nalso dismissed as withdrawn.\n<\/p>\n
25.\tDr. Singhvi submitted that in the report filed
\nby Justice Halbe, as one of the Joint Administrators
\nof the Trust, various irregularities were pointed
\nout indicating that there were acts of
\nmisappropriation, misfeasance and malfeasance by
\nTrustees Vijay Mehta and Dushyant Mehta and that
\nhuge amounts belonging to the Trust had been
\nsiphoned off by them. Various details of such
\nalleged misappropriation have been indicated in the
\nReport and the ultimate figure given by the Joint
\nAdministrator was computed as Rs.258,90,00,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
26.\tWhat Dr. Singhvi tried to convey was that not
\nonly had the Trust been completely mismanaged, but
\nthat the Trust funds were being misappropriated by
\nthe respondent No.1 and some of the other Trustees.
\nDr. Singhvi submitted that in the light of the
\nReport filed by Justice Halbe, in his capacity as
\none of the Joint Administrators, it was all the more
\nexpedient not to restrict the examination of the
\nMinutes Book to the Resolution dated 22.7.1995
\nalone, as has been done by the Bombay High Court in
\nthe order impugned in this appeal, but to allow such
\nexamination in respect of the other Resolutions
\ncontained in the Minutes Book as well, as was
\noriginally intended by the order dated 23.8.2006.\n<\/p>\n
27.\tThe first objection taken by Mr. Ranjit Kumar,
\nlearned Senior Counsel for the respondents, to Dr.
\nSinghvi’s submissions, was that since  the criminal
\ncomplaint was pending before the Magistrate and only
\na direction had been given under Section 156(3) of
\nthe Code of Criminal Procedure, it was not open to
\nthe complainant to indicate the manner in which the
\ninvestigation was to be undertaken.  He also
\nsubmitted that the complaint had originated only
\nafter inspection of the Minutes Book had been shown
\nto the appellant No.1 herein in Suit No.2444 of
\n2006, filed by the said appellant before the City
\nCivil Court at Bombay, praying for a declaration
\nthat the Minutes of the meeting alleged to have been
\nheld on 21.7.95 and the Resolution adopted therein
\nwere forged and fabricated.\n<\/p>\n
28. Mr. Ranjit Kumar also submitted that the
\npetition filed by the appellant No.1 under Section
\n94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuance of
\na search warrant had been dismissed by the learned
\nMagistrate on 15.6.2006.\n<\/p>\n
29.\tMr. Ranjit Kumar urged that the reference made
\nin the order of 23.8.2006 regarding production of
\nthe Minutes Book running into 150 pages for the
\nperiod from 31.1.1993 till 31.3.1997 had to be read
\nand co-related  with paragraph 7 of the order in
\nwhich the parties were allowed to assist the Hand-
\nwriting Expert in identifying the documents from the
\nMinutes Book relating to the Resolution dated
\n22.7.1995 which was directed to be made available to
\nthe Commissioner appointed by the Court for his
\nexamination and verification.\n<\/p>\n
30.\tReferring to the copy of the Minutes of the
\nmeeting of the Board of Trustees dated 31.1.1993,
\n3.5.1993 and copies of other minutes produced by Dr.
\nSinghvi, Mr. Ranjit Kumar submitted that Dr.
\nSinghvi’s submissions thereupon were misconceived
\nsince the expression ‘Mumbai’ had been in existence,
\nparticularly amongst the Gujarati community in
\nBombay, from long before the usage was officially
\nrecognised by the Government of Maharashtra. In
\nfact, he also referred to a Gujarati newspaper known
\nas “Mumbai Samachar” which had been in publication
\nlong before the term ‘Mumbai’ came to be officially
\nused. Mr. Ranjit Kumar submitted that usage of the
\nword ‘Mumbai’ in some places in the aforesaid
\nminutes did not automatically establish that they
\nhad been fabricated.\n<\/p>\n
31.\tRegarding the signature of the Chairman of the
\nBoard of Trustees in the Minutes, Mr. Ranjit Kumar
\nurged that in normal practice the Minutes could be
\nsigned as and when the Chairman was available and
\nhis signature at a later date did not indicate that
\nthe said Minutes were fabricated.\n<\/p>\n
32.\tMr. Ranjit Kumar then referred to the testimony
\nof Charu Kishore Mehta in Suit No.1997 of 2006
\nwherein she had examined herself as PW-1.  It was
\npointed out that in cross-examination Charu Kishore
\nMehta admitted that Vijay Kirtilal Mehta, who was
\nmade defendant No.10 in the suit, was the Managing
\nTrustee of the Trust, though she was not aware of
\nany meeting having taken place in which he had been
\nso appointed.  She also stated that Vijay Kirtilal
\nMehta was the President and Chief Executive Officer
\nof the Lilavati Hospital, though she did not know
\nsince when he had been appointed in such capacity.
\nMr. Ranjit Kumar submitted that Charu Kishore Mehta
\nalso admitted that she was unable to recollect when
\nVijay Kirtilal Mehta had been reappointed as a Term
\nTrustee for the first and second terms.  She was
\nalso unable to recollect as to whether Change Report
\nhad at all been submitted to the Charity
\nCommissioner in respect of such reappointment and
\nthat she also had no knowledge as to when Vijay
\nKirtilal Mehta ceased to be a Term Trustee as had
\nbeen contended by her.\n<\/p>\n
33. Mr. Ranjit Kumar then referred to the testimony
\nof Kishor Kirtilal Mehta, who was examined as PW-6,
\nregarding the souring of relations between him and
\nVijay Kirtilal Mehta and that he believed whatever
\nMrs. Rekha Haresh Sheth, defendant No.2, had told
\nhim at the meetings of the Trust.  PW 6 had deposed
\nthat from what had transpired in the meetings he
\nfully believed that the said defendant No.2 was not
\npersonally involved in the forgery and the
\nfabrication of the documents, though subsequently in
\nthe complaint filed by him before the Metropolitan
\nMagistrate he had also involved her along with other
\nTrustees in the allegations of forgery of the
\nMinutes of 22nd July, 1995.\n<\/p>\n
34.\tMr. Ranjit Kumar also submitted that the Suit
\nNo.2444 of 2006 was dismissed by the learned Judge,
\nCity Civil Court at Bombay, and one of the issues
\ninvolved was whether the plaintiff had been able to
\nprove that even if the meeting of 29th April, 2006
\ndid take place, it was illegal and suffered from the
\nvarious vices set out in the plaint, or at least
\nsome of them, or any of them.  He urged that the
\nlearned Judge had returned a negative finding on the
\nsaid issue.\n<\/p>\n
35.\tReference was also made by Mr. Ranjit Kumar to
\na chargesheet filed by the Central Bureau of
\nInvestigation against the appellant No.1 and his son
\nregarding the manner in which they were alleged to
\nhave deceived people in respect of supply of
\ndiamonds, which was said to be the business being
\nconducted by the said appellant.  He also referred
\nto the various criminal cases said to have been
\nfiled against the appellant No.1 in order to
\nestablish the criminal antecedents of Appellant
\nNo.1.\n<\/p>\n
36.\tMr. Ranjit Kumar lastly submitted that the
\nReport filed by Justice Halbe did not reflect the
\nview of the other Joint Administrator and had been
\nfiled voluntarily and singly, without being asked to
\ndo so by the Court.\n<\/p>\n
37.\tMr. Ranjit Kumar submitted that the case of
\nthe appellant throughout had been that the Minutes
\nof the meeting held on 22nd July, 1995, and the
\nresolution alleged to have been passed therein, were
\nforged and fabricated and taking advantage of the
\nletter written by the Chief Examiner of Documents,
\nCID, the appellant had tried to expand the scope of
\nthe specific order dated 28th August, 2006.\n<\/p>\n
38.\t Mr. Ranjit Kumar submitted that the
\nappellants had filed the appeal to embark upon a
\nroving or fishing enquiry, despite having confined
\ntheir claim for inspection to the specific
\nresolution of 22nd July, 1995, and the same was
\ntherefore, liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
39.\tAppearing on behalf of the State, Mr. P.B.
\nSawant, learned senior counsel, firstly referred to
\nthe first complaint made by the appellant No.1 to
\nthe Senior Inspector-In-charge, Additional C.P., GB
\nCB CID EOW, Crawford Market, Mumbai, on 3rd May,
\n2006, to indicate the scope of the enquiry
\ncontemplated in such complaint.   He particularly
\nreferred to paragraphs 3 to 5 of the complaint,
\nwhich are reproduced hereinbelow:
\n“3. Recently, me and my wife have received
\nfrom No.2 copy of certain Minutes of
\nMeeting of Trustees and from Nos.10 to 20 <\/span>
\ncopy of Resolution in the form of true
\ncopy of extract with purports to disclose
\nas if No.21 Mr. Vijay Kirtilal Mehta is
\nmade a permanent Truestee vide Clause 17
\nof the Trust Deed as on 22nd July, 1995.
\nThey are alleging that in the said Meeting
\nme, my wife, No.2 Mrs. Rekha H. Sheth and
\nShri Bharat S. Shah were present as
\nrecorded in the purported Minutes at pages
\n81 to 83.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tIt is needless to add that these
\ndocuments are not only forged and
\nfabricated, but are per se false documents
\nwhich contain absolutely incorrect facts
\nand have been got up with view to support
\na false claim with the intention of
\ndefrauding the Truest and me and others by
\nforging the said Minutes and the
\nResolution alongwith my signature.  I
\nmaintain and reiterate the no such Meeting
\nwas ever held nor was No.21, Mr. Vijay
\nKirtilal Mehta ever appointed as a
\npermanent trustee as is sought to be
\nportrayed dishonestly and falsely.\n<\/p>\n
5. I further state that these documents
\nare part of a pre-planned conspiracy
\nentered into between all of the above
\nmentioned persons as they all are
\ninstrumental in creating such fabricated
\nand backdated documents only to deprive me
\nand my wife of our legitimate rights and
\nto create right in favour of No.21.  Mr.
\nVijay Kirtilal Mehta as permanent trustee,
\nwhich do not exist.”\n<\/p>\n
He also referred to paragraph 6 of the first
\ncomplaint as also paragraph 6 of the second
\ncomplaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan
\nMagistrate, 4th Court Girgaum, Mumbai, to indicate
\nthe scope of the complaint which dealt with the
\nalleged fabrication of the Minutes of the meeting of
\nthe Board of Trustees alleged to have been held on
\n22nd July, 1995.  Paragraph 6 of the first complaint
\nand paragraph 6 of the second complaint are
\nreproduced hereinbelow one after the other:-\n<\/p>\n
“6. I maintain that there was no such
\nMeeting held and this clearly tentamounts
\nto making a false document and committing
\nforgery and using and possessing the
\nforged document knowing the same to be
\nforged with the intention of committing an
\noffence of cheating which are all done
\npursuant to a pre-planned conspiracy which
\ninvolves altering the pages of the Minute
\nBooks and creating bogus Minutes as well
\nbogus Board Resolutions and extracts
\nthereof.”\n<\/p>\n
“6.  Accused No.2 respondent to the said
\nnotice by her reply dated 7th of April
\n2006, written by her Advocate Mr. Amol
\nInamdar on her behalf, enclosing a copy of
\nthe purported Minutes of a meeting of the
\nBoard of Trustees of the said Trust
\nallegedly held on 22nd July, 1995, in which
\namong other things, it was falsely alleged
\nthat Accused No.1 was appointed as a
\nPermanent Trustee of the said trust aw and
\nfrom 2nd July, 1995.  My wife Smt. Charu K.
\nMehta, gave a copy of the said letter
\ndated 7th April, 2006 along with its
\nenclosures to me for my perusal.  The said
\npurported Minutes copies were hand written
\nand at the foot of the said Minutes, my
\npurported signature has been forged.
\nAnnexed hereto and marked as Exhibit ‘B’
\nis a copy of the said forged Minutes
\nallegedly bearing my signature.  I was
\ntaken aback and rudely shocked to see such
\nMinutes as no such meeting had ever taken
\nplace and neither I have signed any such
\nMinutes nor was Accused No.1 ever
\nappointed as a Permanent Truestee of the
\nsaid Trust, as falsely alleged.   The said
\ncopy of the Minutes per se was forged and
\nfabricated pursuant to a pre-planning
\namong the Accused and others to capture
\npower of the said Trust by ousting me, my
\nwife and the other Trustee.  Neither
\nmyself nor my wife and the said Bharat
\nShah, whose presence has been recorded in
\nthe said Minutes were ever present for any
\nsuch alleged meeting on then purported
\ndate viz. 22nd July, 1995 or otherwise.”\n<\/p>\n
40.\tIt was lastly submitted by him that on account
\nof the findings of the High Court in its order of
\n19th October, 2006 with reference to the letter
\nwritten by the Chief Examiner of Documents on 11th
\nOctober, 2006, regarding the letter said to have
\nbeen sent by the appellant No.1 and the directions
\nof the Court to disregard the same, no interference
\nwas called for with the judgment and order of the
\nHigh Court under appeal.\n<\/p>\n
41.\tAlthough, lengthy arguments have been advanced
\non behalf of the appellants and the respondents, all
\nof whom claimed to have an interest in the
\nmanagement of the Lilavati Hospital, being run by
\nthe Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, what we
\nare called upon to decide in the appeal before us is
\nthe scope of the order passed by the Division Bench
\nof the Bombay High Court on 23.8.2006 in Criminal
\nWrit Petition  No.1581 of 2006 filed by Vijay
\nKirtilal Mehta, in regard to the examination of the
\ndocuments enumerated in paragraph 4 of the order in
\nrelation to the subsequent order of 10.1.2007
\nimpugned in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
42.\tWe are, therefore, also required to examine
\nwhether the scope and ambit of the directions
\ncontained in paragraphs 4 and 7 of the aforesaid
\norder dated 23.8.2006 have in any way been
\ncircumscribed by the subsequent order dated
\n10.1.2007.\n<\/p>\n
43.\tAs has been observed by the Division Bench of
\nthe Bombay High Court in its order of 23.8.2006, the
\nsubject matter of the writ petition involves the
\nallegations made on behalf of the writ petitioners
\nthat a meeting of the Board of Trustees of the
\nLilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust had been held
\non 22.7.1995 pursuant to which a Resolution had been
\nadopted in the absence of the writ petitioner and
\nhis wife and that their signatures had been  forged
\nin the said Resolution. Consequently, as part of the
\ninvestigation, certain documents were required to be
\nexamined by the Hand-writing Expert.  This aspect of
\nthe matter has been highlighted both by Mr. Ranjit
\nKumar and Mr. Sawant appearing for the respondent
\nTrustees and the State of Maharashtra, respectively.
\nIt has accordingly been urged by them that the
\ndirections given in paragraphs 4 and 7 of the said
\norder of 23.8.2006 will have to be read and
\nunderstood in that context only.\n<\/p>\n
44.\tSuch submissions have been made to counter Dr.
\nSinghvi’s submission that paragraph 4 of the order
\ndid not limit the scope of the examination by the
\nHand-writing Expert only to the Resolution dated
\n22.7.95, but that paragraphs 4 and 7 of the order of
\n23.8.2006 taken together clearly indicate that the
\nexamination could be undertaken of the entire
\nMinutes Book itself. It has been urged by him that
\nit is in such context that the entire Minutes Book
\nfor the period from 31.1.1993 till 31.3.1997 had
\nbeen directed to be produced and liberty was given
\nto the parties to assist the Hand-writing Expert in
\nidentifying the documents from the Minutes Book
\nwhich were required to be examined by him and that
\nthe Bombay High Court had erred in altering its
\nearlier directions and confining the examination
\nonly to the Resolution dated 22.7.1995.\n<\/p>\n
45.\tIn order to decide the question arising in this
\nappeal, we will have to examine the circumstances in
\nwhich the criminal writ petition, in which the
\norders dated 28th August, 2006 and 10th January,
\n2007, were passed, came to be filed.\n<\/p>\n
46.\tIn the first complaint made by the appellant
\nNo.1 to the Senior Inspector-In-charge, Additional
\nC.P., GB CD CID EOW, Crawford Market, Mumbai, on 3rd
\nMay, 2006, the focus was on the alleged fabrication
\nof the Minutes of the meeting of the Board of
\nTrustees said to have been held on 22nd July, 1995.
\nParagraph 6 of the complaint, which has been
\nreproduced hereinbefore, categorically alleges that
\nno such meeting had been held and that the pages of
\nthe Minutes Book had been altered thereby creating
\nbogus Minutes and bogus Board Resolutions.\n<\/p>\n
47.\tIn the complaint made before the Additional
\nChief Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Girgaum,
\nMumbai, it has also been specifically stated that
\nalthough in the Minutes of the meeting alleged to
\nhave been held on 22nd July, 1995, the appellant
\nNo.1 and his wife, Charu Kishore Mehta, had been
\nshown to be present, they were neither present at
\nthe meeting nor have they signed the Minutes as had
\nbeen sought to be represented in the Minutes Book.\n<\/p>\n
48.\tIt may be noted that on 22nd May, 2006, the
\nAdditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directed
\ninvestigation into the complaint filed by the
\nappellant No.1, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and on
\n24th July, 2006, pursuant to such order, the Gamdevi
\nPolice Station directed the respondent No.1 to
\nproduce the Minutes Book of the meetings of the
\nBoard of Trustees for the period from 31st January,
\n1993, till date, together with the Resolution
\nadopted on 22nd July, 1995 and the letter of 21st
\nJuly, 1995 signed by the appellants and Smt. Rekha
\nSheth.\n<\/p>\n
49.\tIn the meantime, the appellant No.1 also filed
\nSuit No.2444 of 2006 on 13th May, 2006, in the City
\nCivil Court at Bombay for a declaration that the
\nMinutes of the meeting of the Trustees, alleged to
\nhave been held on 22nd July, 1995, and the
\nResolution adopted therein, were forged and
\nfabricated. Significantly, it was on 21st May, 2006,
\nduring the hearing of the appellant No.1’s prayer
\nfor interim relief in the said suit, that the
\nMinutes Book of the Trust for the period between
\n31st July, 1993 and 31st March, 1997, was produced by
\nthe respondent before the Court and according to the
\nappellants, it was on such occasion that for the
\nfirst time they came across the Minutes Book which
\non examination was found to be full of forgeries and
\nfabrications.\n<\/p>\n
50.\tIt may also be noted that the criminal
\ncomplaint and the suit were both proceeded with
\nsimultaneously, but the order for examination of the
\nMinutes Book and the Resolution of 22nd July, 1995
\nand the letter of 21st July, 1995, were passed by
\nthe Bombay High Court in the proceeding arising out
\nof the criminal complaint before the Additional
\nChief Metropolitan Magistrate.  It may, therefore,
\nbe concluded that the directions contained in the
\norder passed by the Bombay High Court on 23rd
\nAugust, 2006, was made on the basis of the complaint
\nbefore the Magistrate and not on the basis of what
\nhad been discovered when the Minutes Book had been
\nproduced before the City Civil Court at Bombay in
\nconnection with Suit No.2444 of 2006 filed by the
\nappellant No.1 herein. In fact, the relief prayed
\nfor in the suit was also limited to a declaration
\nthat the Minutes of the meeting held on 22nd July,
\n1995 and the Resolution passed therein were forged
\nand fabricated.\n<\/p>\n
51.\tIt is obvious that certain new materials were
\ndiscovered by the appellants after examining the
\nMinutes Book which had been produced by the
\nrespondent No.1 before the City Civil Court at
\nBombay, and the same has inspired the appellants to
\nclaim that the directions given on 23rd August,
\n2006, by the Bombay High Court covered examination
\nof the entire Minutes Book and was not only confined
\nto the Minutes of the meeting held on 22nd July,
\n1995 and the Resolution subsequently adopted.   As
\nindicated hereinbefore, the High Court was
\napparently aware of the aforesaid situation and
\nthereby limited the examination of the Minutes Book
\nto the Minutes of the meeting said to have been held
\non 21st July, 1995, for the present (emphasis
\nsupplied).\n<\/p>\n
52.\tIn our view, the High Court did not restrict
\nfurther examination of the Minutes Book, if
\nrequired, but for the purpose of the complaint filed
\nbefore the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
\nthe High Court seems to have taken the view that the
\nexamination by the Handwriting Expert of the Minutes
\nof the meeting held on 21st July, 1995, was
\nsufficient and it ordered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
53.\tThe matter is still pending before the Bombay
\nHigh Court and should any further examination of the
\nMinutes Book of the Trust be necessary, it will
\nalways be open to the complainant-appellant No.1
\nherein to apply for such further examination in the
\npending proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
54.\tWe, therefore, see no reason to interfere with
\nthe order passed by the Bombay High Court on 10th
\nJanuary, 2007, which has been challenged in this
\nappeal, since, in our view, the High Court was
\ncompelled to pass such order on account of the
\ndispute raised about the authenticity of various
\nsignatures in the Minutes Book purported to be that
\nof the appellants herein.\n<\/p>\n
55.\tWe accordingly dismiss the appeal, but we also
\nmake it clear that the directions given by the
\nBombay High Court in the order of 10th January, 2007
\nhave been made in praesenti and will not in any way
\npreclude further examination of the Minutes Book.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kishor Kirtilal Mehta & Ors vs Vijay Kirtilal Mehta & Ors on 18 February, 2008 Author: A Kabir Bench: Altamas Kabir, Lokeshwar Singh Panta CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 330 of 2008 PETITIONER: Kishor Kirtilal Mehta & Ors RESPONDENT: Vijay Kirtilal Mehta & ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/02\/2008 BENCH: ALTAMAS KABIR & […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-189254","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKishor Kirtilal Mehta & Ors vs Vijay Kirtilal Mehta & Ors on 18 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-kirtilal-mehta-ors-vs-vijay-kirtilal-mehta-ors-on-18-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kishor Kirtilal Mehta & Ors vs Vijay Kirtilal Mehta & Ors on 18 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-kirtilal-mehta-ors-vs-vijay-kirtilal-mehta-ors-on-18-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-29T06:57:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"36 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishor-kirtilal-mehta-ors-vs-vijay-kirtilal-mehta-ors-on-18-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishor-kirtilal-mehta-ors-vs-vijay-kirtilal-mehta-ors-on-18-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kishor Kirtilal Mehta & Ors vs Vijay Kirtilal Mehta & Ors on 18 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-29T06:57:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishor-kirtilal-mehta-ors-vs-vijay-kirtilal-mehta-ors-on-18-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":7254,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishor-kirtilal-mehta-ors-vs-vijay-kirtilal-mehta-ors-on-18-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishor-kirtilal-mehta-ors-vs-vijay-kirtilal-mehta-ors-on-18-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishor-kirtilal-mehta-ors-vs-vijay-kirtilal-mehta-ors-on-18-february-2008\",\"name\":\"Kishor Kirtilal Mehta & Ors vs Vijay Kirtilal Mehta & Ors on 18 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-29T06:57:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishor-kirtilal-mehta-ors-vs-vijay-kirtilal-mehta-ors-on-18-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishor-kirtilal-mehta-ors-vs-vijay-kirtilal-mehta-ors-on-18-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishor-kirtilal-mehta-ors-vs-vijay-kirtilal-mehta-ors-on-18-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kishor Kirtilal Mehta & Ors vs Vijay Kirtilal Mehta & Ors on 18 February, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kishor Kirtilal Mehta & Ors vs Vijay Kirtilal Mehta & Ors on 18 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-kirtilal-mehta-ors-vs-vijay-kirtilal-mehta-ors-on-18-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kishor Kirtilal Mehta & Ors vs Vijay Kirtilal Mehta & Ors on 18 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-kirtilal-mehta-ors-vs-vijay-kirtilal-mehta-ors-on-18-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-29T06:57:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"36 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-kirtilal-mehta-ors-vs-vijay-kirtilal-mehta-ors-on-18-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-kirtilal-mehta-ors-vs-vijay-kirtilal-mehta-ors-on-18-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kishor Kirtilal Mehta & Ors vs Vijay Kirtilal Mehta & Ors on 18 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-29T06:57:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-kirtilal-mehta-ors-vs-vijay-kirtilal-mehta-ors-on-18-february-2008"},"wordCount":7254,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-kirtilal-mehta-ors-vs-vijay-kirtilal-mehta-ors-on-18-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-kirtilal-mehta-ors-vs-vijay-kirtilal-mehta-ors-on-18-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-kirtilal-mehta-ors-vs-vijay-kirtilal-mehta-ors-on-18-february-2008","name":"Kishor Kirtilal Mehta & Ors vs Vijay Kirtilal Mehta & Ors on 18 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-29T06:57:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-kirtilal-mehta-ors-vs-vijay-kirtilal-mehta-ors-on-18-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-kirtilal-mehta-ors-vs-vijay-kirtilal-mehta-ors-on-18-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-kirtilal-mehta-ors-vs-vijay-kirtilal-mehta-ors-on-18-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kishor Kirtilal Mehta & Ors vs Vijay Kirtilal Mehta & Ors on 18 February, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189254","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=189254"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189254\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=189254"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=189254"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=189254"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}