Justice Jamdar Links Harassment to Prior Contempt Orders Against Advocates Nedumpara and Kurle
In a serious judicial turn, Justice Madhav J. Jamdar of the Bombay High Court has alleged an orchestrated attempt by certain lawyers to malign him and “frame” him using deceptive tactics outside the courtroom. The Judge has ordered a police enquiry into suspicious phone calls made by Advocate Partho Sarkar to his wife, raising questions about a possible conspiracy connected to earlier contempt proceedings involving Advocates Mathews Nedumpara and Vijay Kurle.
The matter originates from Interim Application No. 195 of 2025 in Writ Petition No. 3707 of 2022, a maintenance enforcement dispute between Sabina Lakdawala and Feroze Y. Lakdawala. Following repeated breaches of undertakings to pay arrears, the court began hearing the case more closely—during which, on 17 April 2025, Advocate Nedumpara declared in court: “I am not the slave of the Court,” prompting immediate judicial disapproval and contempt considerations.
Justice Jamdar detailed a series of events in his 29 April 2025 order, where Advocate Partho Sarkar allegedly contacted the judge’s wife on 22 and 23 April, pretending to be a prospective buyer of a jointly-owned flat. Despite being informed that the seller was a sitting High Court judge and that payment would only be accepted by cheque, Mr. Sarkar did not disclose his identity as an advocate.
“It is very clear that an attempt is made to frame this Court,” the judge observed in his written order.
He added: “All these things are made with an intention to humiliate and browbeat this Court and tarnish the image of this Court.”
Justice Jamdar noted the suspicious timing and unnatural tone of the interactions, further stating:
“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.”
Citing earlier Supreme Court rulings that recorded similar disruptive conduct by the same advocates, Justice Jamdar referred to landmark decisions including:
- Mathews Nedumpara, In Re, (2019) 19 SCC 454
- Vijay Kurle, In Re, (2021) 13 SCC 616
- National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency & Reforms v. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 687
In response to a pursis filed by Mr. Sarkar requesting the judge to recuse, Justice Jamdar referenced Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. S. Teja Singh, (1953) 2 SCC 571, where the Supreme Court held that a judge personally attacked in contempt could still hear the case if it arose directly in court. Nevertheless, the judge has placed the matter before the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court to decide on future bench allocation.
Finally, the Court has ordered the Senior Inspector of Malabar Hill Police Station to investigate:
- Phone calls made on 22, 23, and 24 April 2025
- A previous call from 29 October 2023
The enquiry report is to be submitted to the Registrar General of the High Court within three weeks, signalling the judiciary’s stern stance against any coordinated attempts to influence or harass judicial officers.
Case: Sabina Lakdawala vs Feroze Lakdawala – Available on LAWFYI.IO
