ACB JUDGE SHASHIKALA S NAGUR MUMBAI SESSION WANT TO ARGUE MATTER WITHOUT CASE NUMBER. WHY JUDGE GIVING SPECIAL TREATMENT TO THIS CASE?
ALL THE CASES ARE ARGUING DURING FILING STAGE OR WITHOUT CAUSELIST LISTING?
.jpeg)
Mumbai: The complainant filed three contempt petitions against ACB MUMBAI officers for not registering Zero FIR against Thane District Judge SB Agarwal, ADJ Amit Shete and JMFC Smt GS Bora for doing corruption in judicial process under section 7&13 of PC ACT 1992. The ACB officers disobeyed SC Lalita Kumari directions and contempt filed as per para 3 of the Lalita Kumari judgment.
The registry raised maintainability question to petitioner .Petitioner referred SC judgment that registry cannot decide maintainability of petition. As per the ACB judge Shashikala verbal direction registry is not numbering contempt petition . Clerks are afraid to number petition as ACB officers are having well wishers in session court. They are insisting petitioner to argue with judge of maintainability of contempt petition. When petitioner send email to court 15 then ACB judge given direction to appear without case number. Is judge don't want to number petition ? Similar contempt matter is in process at CBI court 51 Mumbai Sapan Shrivastava vs Deepak Jamor joint director CBI Mumbai.As per the procedure registry list the matter with administrative judge not regular judge. The Admin judge give direction to list before regular court. Complainant said that the filing clerk went to Principle session Judge Mumbai for direction in the 3 contempt petition. PD gave verbal direction to list before court 15. The ACB court want to argue matter without case number about maintainability of petition against well wisher ACB Officials.
ACB Officers donot follow SC Lalita Kumari Judgement and their well wishers are ready to protect them as they give "services" to them.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSION COURT MUMBAI(1), Mumbai City Civil Court
Next/ Disposal Date Case Number Party Name
Jul
10
2025
Pending 1)MISC APPLN CBI/101193/2024
COURT 51 ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE
REPLY/SAY
Sapan Shrivastava Vs Deepak M Jamor and Other 5
11-07-2025 (4)
14-07-2025 (2)
15-07-2025 (1)
16-07-2025 (4)
17-07-2025 (1)
18-07-2025 (3)
19-07-2025 (1)
21-07-2025 (1)
22-07-2025 (1)
23-07-2025 (2)
25-07-2025 (3)
28-07-2025 (4)
29-07-2025 (3)
30-07-2025 (4)
31-07-2025 (2)
August 2025
01-08-2025 (1)
04-08-2025 (1)
05-08-2025 (2)
07-08-2025 (2)
08-08-2025 (3)
13-08-2025 (1)
18-08-2025 (3)
19-08-2025 (4)
23-08-2025 (2)
25-08-2025 (2)
26-08-2025 (6)
29-08-2025 (1)
September 2025
02-09-2025 (3)
04-09-2025 (3)
09-09-2025 (1)
10-09-2025 (1)
13-09-2025 (1)
15-09-2025 (1)
18-09-2025 (1)
20-09-2025 (1)
October 2025
03-10-2025 (1)
09-10-2025 (1)
16-10-2025 (2)
28-10-2025 (1)
November 2025
06-11-2025 (1)
11-11-2025 (1)
28-11-2025 (1)
December 2025
03-12-2025 (1)
10-12-2025 (1)
16-12-2025 (1)
27-12-2025 (1)
April 2026
13-04-2026 (1)
Toggle Menu button
eCourts Services
Remove caseAdd Case to My Cases
Case History
CITY CIVIL AND SESSION COURT MUMBAI
Case Type MISC APPLN CBI
Filing Number 115783/2024
Filing Date 29-08-2024
Registration Number 101193/2024
Registration Date 29-08-2024
CNR Number MHCC020130402024
First Hearing Date 29-08-2024
Next Hearing Date 18-08-2025
Case Stage REPLY/SAY
Court Number and Judge 51-COURT 51 ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE
1) Sapan Shrivastava
Vs
1) Deepak M Jamor and Other 5
2) Vijay Patil
3) Shree Rajendra Sangale
4) Shree Sandip Diwan
5) State - DG, ACB Mumba
i
6) Union of India Through CBI Director, Delhi
Under Act(s) Under Section(s)
Contempt Of Court Act 15
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: NEETA PARAB <courtvc15@gmail.com>
To: Brijesh Sharma <brijesh100_sharma@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 at 07:28:59 PM GMT+10
Subject: Re: VC Link Court Room No. 15
On going through your application although you attended the other court as per your email dated 09/07/2025 at 11.12 am at Thane but you have not your inclination to attend this court. Your prayer in the application to register the complaint can not be granted without your hearing on the objections.
The last opportunity is given to you appear and or argue through video Conferencing on 15/07/2025 at 11.00 am failing which it will be presumed that you are not ready to argue the case. However in the interest of justice in case you want to file written argument on the point of objections you may do so.
It is a settled principle that a Presiding Officer or judicial forum cannot create or adopt procedures contrary to statutory provisions, the High Court rules, and binding Supreme Court precedents. In Union of India v. Madras Bar Association, (2010) 11 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that judicial powers must be exercised strictly within the framework of law and prescribed procedures; a court cannot override the statutory process by creating its own parallel procedure. Similar principles are reaffirmed in State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd., (2004) 11 SCC 26. Also, any disobeying direction of law will amount to a breach of judicial discipline and the binding effect of Supreme Court judgments under Article 141.
ReplyDeleteFrom: Brijesh Sharma
ReplyDeleteTo: NEETA PARAB ; ctcourt-mum@nic.in ; rgpstocj-bhc@nic.in ; rg-bhc@nic.in ; Supreme Court India
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 at 08:32:20 PM GMT+5:30
Subject: Re: VC Link Court Room No. 15
The email communication by the Applicant is legally valid and recognized. E-mail falls within the definition of "correspondence" in Rule 2(e) of the Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Government Duties Rules, 2013, and it is also included in the definition of "posts and letters" under Rule 2(o). Moreover, Rule 8 mandates every government authority to acknowledge all emails received by them. Additionally, electronic records are legally recognized under Section 4 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Therefore, the email communication by the Applicant is fully legally valid.
Dear courtvc15,
1) I acknowledge receipt of your email dated 10/07/2025 conveying that my application cannot be granted without a hearing on the objections and granting me an opportunity to appear and argue through Video Conferencing on 15/07/2025 at 11:00 AM.
2) I respectfully submit that any such directions, communications, or procedural instructions must strictly comply with law and be supported by a certified copy of the Hon’ble Court’s written order or a duly recorded note of proceedings.
3) I further submit that the impugned email communication is not maintainable in law in the absence of any supporting judicial record or order. Any instruction that affects a party’s right or obligation must have its legal basis clearly reflected on the record to avoid arbitrariness and to comply with the due process of law.
4) It is well-settled that denying a party the right to verify the existence of an order or directions violates the fundamental principles of natural justice, including audi alteram partem (right to be heard) and the right to receive a reasoned, authorised communication from a competent authority.
FRAUD ON POWER:
5) The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Vijay Shekhar v. Union of India, 2004 (3) Crimes 33 SC, held that passing orders by ignoring material on record and acting arbitrarily and irrationally amounts to fraud on power. The Hon’ble Court ruled that an order passed in utter disregard of the actual, relevant and vital aspects amounts to non-application of mind and abuse of authority.
6) In light of this, the Hon’ble Court, in the interest of transparency and accountability, must disclose a certified copy of the order or official letter, if any, authorising communication of such directions by email. Failure to provide this would amount to a serious lapse in procedural fairness and would render the directions legally unenforceable and liable to be treated as an act of fraud on power and fraud upon the process of law.
7) In view of the above, I hereby request:
a) A copy of the Hon’ble Court’s order or duly recorded proceedings on the basis of which this email communication has been sent;
b) Disclosure of the name, designation, and official capacity of the person who instructed, drafted, and issued the said email communication; and
c) Any other supporting documentation or record note if the directions are based on verbal instructions of the Hon’ble Court.
8) Without prejudice, I reiterate my willingness to appear and argue through Video Conferencing or to submit my written arguments, provided that the above documents are furnished to me in compliance with the settled principles of law.
9) I respectfully urge that this request be treated as urgent and necessary for ensuring that the Hon’ble Court’s proceedings are conducted strictly in accordance with law, principles of natural justice, and the binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Kindly acknowledge receipt of this communication & provide the copy of Hon’ble Court.
Jaihind,
Brijesh Sharma