- By Surarika Das
- Wed, 29 Apr 2026 02:59 PM (IST)
- Source:JND
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday directed a 90-year-old woman to wait for a period of twenty years for the next hearing in a defamation case. The HC asserted that it will hear the case in 2046, in the legal dispute pitting Tariniben, 90, and Dhvani Desai, 57, against others in a "battle of egos."
The single-bench judge headed by Justice Jitendra Jain said that he does not "wish to state anything except that the matter should not be taken up for the next 20 years."
The Rs 20 crore defamation suit was filed around 10 years ago. On April 20, the court directed the two sides to settle. While the erstwhile committee members agreed to apologise, the elderly woman remained rigid to her decision.
What Is The Case About?
The mother-daughter pair had demanded Rs 20 crore in damages from the former members of the housing society's managing committee for causing them mental anguish and reputational harm by falsely labeling them as "defaulters." Before they launched the lawsuit in 2017, they claimed that they had been harassed for eight years because they had questioned the exorbitant costs for community repairs. They claimed that the organisation had labelled them "defaulter members" for failing to pay their maintenance bills and blamed them for their growing legal costs at yearly general body meetings.
ALSO READ: 'UP Was Known For Potholes, Now Has 21 Airports': PM Modi Criticises SP, Congress In Hardoi
The housing society's members were then represented by ALMT Legal. The members said that they would apologise unconditionally without any prejudice. However, the old woman insisted on pursuing the legal suit. "This is one of the matters where the ego fight between parties at the fag end of their lives clogs the system, which prevents the court from taking up the matters that really require more priority," Times of India quoted the judge as saying.
In March 2025, another bench warned that if the petitioner's counsel failed to appear on the next date, the case would be dismissed. In 2019 as well, the court granted plaintiffs time to submit a list of witnesses and relevant documents; however, instead of being resolved, the dispute dragged on.