The Bombay High Court recently witnessed drama during court proceedings when a woman litigant attempted to throw her purse at a judge. [Harjit Kaur Onkar Singh Kalra & Ors v. Rose Venkateshan V Alias Rose Kumar & Ors]
The incident took place during the hearing of a contempt petition arising from an eviction dispute. Justice Madhav Jamdar recorded the unwarranted conduct in his order dated October 27.
“It is also required to be noted that the Respondent No.4- Minder Gurmit Singh Thukral in the Court has behaved in a wholly inappropriate manner, which also amounts to contempt of Court,” the order noted.
Justice Jamdar specifically flagged the conduct of a respondent, Harpreet Singh Gurmeet Singh Thukral. The judge had to call security to escort the distressed litigant out of the court.
The Court listed the matter on October 30 to hear the contempt petition regarding the conduct of all respondents, who are required to remain present in person.
The underlying legal battle began in 2009. The landlord, Onkar Singh Kalra, filed an eviction suit before the small causes court. The trial court decreed the suit in July 2018 against the legal heirs of tenant Tarlok Singh Thukral. The tenants challenged the eviction decree before several benches. An appeal was dismissed in October 2021.
A civil revision application was rejected in July 2024. A review petition was subsequently dismissed by the High Court in October 2024. The decree was formally executed on April 17, 2025. The respondents, however, re-entered and occupied the property in dispute.
Justice Jamdar described these developments as shocking in his October 27 order.
“Thus, prima facie I am satisfied that the conduct of these respondents amounts to interference in the administration of justice,” the judge recorded.
The Bench highlighted a 150-year-old Privy Council quote cited in an earlier order. The Privy Council had observed that “the difficulty of the litigants in India starts after getting the decree”.
Justice Jamdar remarked that this case went a step further because the decree-holder faced obstruction even after execution.
The High Court appointed a court receiver to take symbolic possession by October 28.
Advocates Prathmesh Seth, Trupti Gosavi and Harshit Waje appeared for the owners.
Advocates Omprakash Pandey and Pramila Prajapati appeared for the original tenants.
[Read order]