NAVIN PAREKH Vs. MADHUBALA SHRIDHAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal writ petition filed by a practising advocate whereby he has assailed the validity of an order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, Bombay, in Criminal Case No. 356/S of 1987 issuing process against him for an alleged offence of defamation. To say the least, the facts of the present case represent a rather unsavoury state of affairs and it is ironical that we are concerned here with not one but two practising advocates embroiled in a personal tiff that, to my mind, should never have reached a Court of law. Respondent No. 1, who is the original Complainant, to crown matters, is a lady advocate. She was appointed legal adviser of the Indian Motion Pictures Producers' Association ('IMPPA' for short) in the month of November 1984. It appears that a dispute arose with regard to certain bills submitted by her in relation to the professional work done for this body and for the Film Industry Anti -Video Piracy Organization ('AVPO' for short), which is supposed to be separate and independent from the IMPPA. It appears that for certain reasons, the retainership arrangement came to be terminated and it is alleged that her dues were also settled. In the Executive Committee meeting of the IMPPA held on 14.5.1985, the resignation of one Ramraj Nahata, who was earlier the President of the body, came to be accepted and one Prakash Mehra was elected the President. Thereafter by another communication dated 4.6.1985, Respondent No. 1 was once again appointed legal adviser/retainer of the IMPPA on a monthly remuneration of Rs. 1000/ - to look after all the legal work of the IMPPA and its allied organizations. The out -of -pocket expenses incurred by Respondent No. 1, except the conveyance allowance, were to be reimbursed to her. It is pointed out by the Petitioner, who was the lawyer acting on behalf of IMPPA and its President, that between the period 24th to 26th April 1985 when the services of Respondent No. 1 were first terminated and 4.6.1985 when Respondent No. 1 was re -appointed, no claim of whatsoever nature was preferred by her against the IMPPA. It is also contended by the Petitioner that a list of payments as set out in Exhibit 'B' to the Petition had been made by the IMPPA to Respondent No. 1.

(2.) ACCORDING to the Petitioner, general elections were thereafter held to the Executive Committee of the IMPPA and Ramraj Nahata was elected as the President once again. Respondent No. 1, by letter dated 15.10.1985, submitted her resignation mentioning that the pending bills should be settled. By a letter dated 4.11.1985, the resignation was accepted with effect from 15.10.1985 and Respondent No. 1 was requested to attend the office of the IMPPA to collect her dues. A cheque dated 15.11.1985 for a sum of Rs. 500/ - was sent to Respondent No. 1, which was received by her on 17.12.1985 against which a receipt in a general cyclostyled form was issued by her.

(3.) BETWEEN this period and January 1987, there is on record certain detailed correspondence because the Petitioner who was representing the IMPPA had seriously disputed the correctness of the claim made by Respondent No. 1. Apart from other aspects, he had contended that Respondent No. 1's dues had been fully settled on 17.12.1985 as per her own admission on a plain reading of the receipt of that date and, furthermore, that the IMPPA was not liable to pay the bills relating to the AVPO, which was a different organization. In paragraph (23), the Petitioner has briefly pointed out that there is considerable overlapping with regard to the subject -matter of the 33 bills, that some of them are copies of the earlier bills and that several of the bills have been prepared on the same day. There is a serious charge of making false demands levelled against Respondent No. 1 in the petition, which cannot really be disputed by her on the basis of the record.