exemplary cost Archives | SCC Times https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/tag/exemplary-cost/ Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News Mon, 12 May 2025 03:52:38 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.3 https://www.scconline.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/cropped-SCC-Online_Telegram_HR-32x32.jpg exemplary cost Archives | SCC Times https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/tag/exemplary-cost/ 32 32 Bombay HC stays Rs 1.5 crore costs imposed on AAI over unpaid airport charges dispute with Irish Company, Aer Lingus Ltd. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/05/05/bomhc-stays-rs-1-5-crore-costs-imposed-on-aai-over-dispute-with-aer-lingus-ltd/ https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/05/05/bomhc-stays-rs-1-5-crore-costs-imposed-on-aai-over-dispute-with-aer-lingus-ltd/#respond Mon, 05 May 2025 12:30:37 +0000 https://www.scconline.com/blog/?p=347185 “The officials of the applicant, i.e., the Airport Authority of India, may have been over cautious in protecting its interest and hence impleaded Respondent 1 which is the owner of the aircrafts”.

The post Bombay HC stays Rs 1.5 crore costs imposed on AAI over unpaid airport charges dispute with Irish Company, Aer Lingus Ltd. appeared first on SCC Times.

]]>

Bombay High Court: In a case wherein the applicant, Airport Authority of India filed a suit for non-payment of airport charges and impleaded Respondent 1, Aer Lingus Ltd. as it leased aircrafts to Respondents 2 and 3, by the judgment dated 3-1-2025 (‘the impugned judgment’), the Trial Court had opined that the applicant was not entitled to claim the charges from Respondent 1 as it had leased its aircrafts to Respondents 2 and 3 and thus, they were liable for the charges. The Trial Court further opined that the applicant colluded with Respondents 2 and 3 to exercise its right to recover dues from Respondent 1, thus, exemplary costs of Rs 1 crore and litigation costs of Rs 50 lakhs were imposed on the applicant.

The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, C.J., and M.S. Karnik*, J., while considering the applicant’s prayer seeking stay of the interim operation and effect of the impugned judgment till final disposal of appeal, opined that merely because Respondent 1 was made party to the suit and a claim was made against it was not sufficient to impose exemplary costs and the finding that there was collusion between the applicant’s officials and Respondents 2 and 3, was prima facie, misconceived. Thus, the Court directed that the impugned judgment against the applicant should be stayed.

Background

The applicant had detained two aircrafts of Respondent 1 for non-payment of charges for which a suit was filed and was later challenged by Respondent 1 before this Court. The order dated 27-12-1996 was passed wherein Respondent 1 was permitted to take possession of the aircrafts subject to furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 2 Crores. The Trial Court noted that Respondent 1 had leased its aircrafts to Respondents 2 and 3 and as per the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 and Rules thereunder to claim recovery of charges for services and facilities rendered, it was Respondents 2 and 3 alone who were liable to pay the charges to the applicant.

The applicant prayed to stay the order dated 27-6-2024 (‘the impugned order’), whereby the Trial Court held that there was no privity of contract between the applicant and Respondent 1. In the impugned order, it was held that the applicant failed to show that it was entitled to claim charges for services and facilities rendered and lending charges from Respondent 1. The Trial Court held that the charges that were to be recovered for the use of the airport by the aircraft, were to be recovered from Respondents 2 and 3, if any, being in its possession as lessee at the relevant time.

The Trial Court by the impugned judgment opined that the applicant was not entitled to claim the charges for services and facilities rendered and lending charges from Respondent 1 as it had leased its aircrafts to Respondents 2 and 3. The Trial Court held that Respondents 2 and 3 were liable for the charges to the applicant. Further, the Trial Court regarding the issue whether the applicant colluded with Respondents 2 and 3 to claim the dues from Respondent 1, opined that the applicant purported to exercise its right to recover dues because of such collusion from Respondent 1. Thus, exemplary costs of Rs 1 crore and litigation costs of Rs 50 lakhs were imposed on the applicant that was to be paid Respondent 1 with interest thereon @9%p.a. from the date of decree till its realisation in full. Thus, the applicant prayed that till the final disposal of the appeal, interim operation and effect of the impugned order and impugned judgment be stayed.

Analysis, Law and Decision

The Court referred to Clause 3 of the operative portion of the impugned judgment and opined that it was inclined to stay the impugned judgment subject to the applicant depositing the amounts directed to be ordered in terms of Clause 3 in this Court within the period of eight weeks from the date of this order. The Court, after referring to Clause 4 of the impugned judgment opined that imposing exemplary costs and litigation costs on the applicant appeared to be unjustified.

The Court noted that Respondent 1 had leased out its aircrafts to Respondents 2 and 3 and they defaulted in payment of the relevant charges for which the suit for recovery was filed. The Court stated that the applicant’s officials might have been over cautious in protecting the applicant’s interest and hence impleaded Respondent 1 which was the owner of the aircrafts.

The Court opined that merely because Respondent 1 was made party to the suit and a claim was made against them was not sufficient to impose exemplary costs and the finding that there was collusion between the applicant’s officials and Respondents 2 and 3, was prima facie, misconceived. Further, there was no basis for allowing the claim of Rs. 50 lakhs which Respondent 1 made towards litigation expenses and costs. The Court stated that a money decree should not ordinarily be stayed unless the decretal amount was deposited, but in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it was inclined to stay the operation and effect of Clause 4 of the impugned judgment.

The Court rejected the applicant’s request to stay Clause 5 of the impugned judgment and directed the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court to expeditiously take steps to comply with Clause 5 of the impugned judgment of the Trial Court.

[Airport Authority of India v. Aer Lingus Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 1738, decided on 25-4-2025]

*Judgment authored by: Justice M.S. Karnik

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Applicant: Aseem Naphade a/w Radha H. Bhandari and S. D. Shetty i/b M.V. Kini & Co. for the Applicant.

For the Respondents: Archana Deshmukh a/w Krishan Singhania, Srishti Singhania, Anjana Devi and Aayush Shah i/b Singhania & Co. for Respondents 1, 4, and 5.

The post Bombay HC stays Rs 1.5 crore costs imposed on AAI over unpaid airport charges dispute with Irish Company, Aer Lingus Ltd. appeared first on SCC Times.

]]> https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/05/05/bomhc-stays-rs-1-5-crore-costs-imposed-on-aai-over-dispute-with-aer-lingus-ltd/feed/ 0 347185 ‘Take steps to inculcate discipline in Advocates’; Telangana HC directs State Bar Council after advocate uses high-pitched, intimidating voice https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/04/18/telhc-directs-state-bar-council-to-take-steps-to-inculcate-discipline-in-advocates-legal-news/ https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/04/18/telhc-directs-state-bar-council-to-take-steps-to-inculcate-discipline-in-advocates-legal-news/#respond Thu, 18 Apr 2024 06:30:11 +0000 https://www.scconline.com/blog/?p=320272 The counsels who adopt such practices, jeopardize the harmony with the Bench along with their professional careers, by ignoring the fact that they are not only required to conduct the case in a fair manner, but while doing so they are also officers of the Court.

The post ‘Take steps to inculcate discipline in Advocates’; Telangana HC directs State Bar Council after advocate uses high-pitched, intimidating voice appeared first on SCC Times.

]]>

Telangana High Court: The present writ petition was filed seeking to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent 2 in issuing the unnumbered notice dated 30-3-2024 (‘impugned notice’) as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14, 16, 19, and 21 of Constitution and set aside the same. T. Vinod Kumar, J., held that the action of Respondent 3 in issuing the impugned notice dated 30-3-2024 did not suffer from any infirmity. The Court opined that petitioner was in the habit of taking liberties in approaching the Court by filing writ petitions without any basis, not disclosing all the relevant facts, making uncorroborated allegations, and resorting to suppression, wasting judicial time. Thus, the Court dismissed the writ petition with exemplary cost of Rs 1 lakh to be paid to the Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee.

Background

Petitioner submitted that initially she was elected as ward member of Respondent 4, Adibatla Municipality and thereafter was elected as the Chairperson of the said Municipality. Petitioner further submitted that Respondent 2 being fully aware of the election notification issued for the Parliament elections, had issued the impugned notice dated 30-3-2024 without even mentioning any ROC number which itself proved the unethical practice adopted by Respondent 2. Based on this, petitioner sought for suspension of the impugned notice and contended that though the same pertained to the Adibatla Municipality, the same was issued under the signature of Respondent 3, who was unconnected with the affairs of the said Municipality; and no reason was specified for the issuance of such notice.

Respondent submitted that petitioner’s claim of continuing to hold the office of Chairperson of the Adibatla Municipality was wrong, as petitioner was removed from the office of Chairperson in a No-confidence motion moved on 9-2-2024 and the Government having issued the G.O. Ms. No.55 M.A. & U.D department, dated 23-3-2024, notifying the motion of No-confidence against petitioner having been moved successfully on account of which, a casual vacancy to the office of Chairperson of the Adibatla Municipality had arisen, petitioner could not continue to claim as the Chairperson of the Adibatla Municipality.

Respondent contended that the action of Respondent 3 in issuing the impugned notice was in accordance with the Rule 4 of the Telangana Municipalities (Conduct of Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of Municipal Council and Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Municipal Corporation) Rules, 2020 (‘Rules) as notified vide G.O.Ms. No. 18, MA & UD (MA) Department, dated 16-2-2020.

Analysis, Law, and Decision

The Court found it necessary to put on record the conduct of petitioner’s Counsel in trying to address this Court in a high-pitched voice and also in an intimidating manner on 4-4-2024 while seeking to mention the matter for being taken up, after the same was directed to be listed before this Court by a coordinate bench on 3-4-2024. The Court opined that the conduct of the Counsels addressing the Court in a high decibel, had become a regular practice to deter the Court from either taking up or not taking up their cases. The conduct on the part of the counsel which obstructed administration of justice amounted to ‘misconduct’ under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 having a wider import.

The Court opined that the counsels who adopt such practices, jeopardize the harmony with the Bench along with their professional careers, by ignoring the fact that they were not only required to conduct the case in a fair manner, but while doing so they were also officers of the Court. The Court further opined that though it was not deterred by such kinds of practices or tactics adopted by the Counsel, it felt necessary to place the same on record, so that it would act as a cautionary tale to the counsels appearing before the Court.

The Court noted that petitioner had earlier approached this Court twice and while the first petition was withdrawn; the second petition was dismissed on the ground that petitioner had approached this Court by resorting to suppression. The Court further noted that in the present case, petitioner did not mention that a no-confidence motion was moved against her, after which she ceased to be the Chairperson of the Adibatla Municipality and on account of the motion of No-confidence against petitioner, a casual vacancy had arisen in the office of Chairperson of the Adibatla Municipality which was required to be filled up by the State Election Commission by issuing a notification.

The Court noted that the Telangana State Election Commission had issued the notification dated 27-3-2024 whereby Respondent 2 was directed to take steps for conducting election to the casual vacancy in the offices of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the Adibatla Municipality. The Court opined that petitioner’s challenge to the impugned notice was based on irrelevant, unconnected, and unsubstantiated allegations which have no bearing to the issue involved, to cause prejudice in the mind of the Court against respondents.

The Court opined that petitioner who herself was Chairperson of the Adibatla Municipality for over three years and claimed to have discharged her duties, was unaware of the procedure that was to be followed for electing a Chairperson and moving of No-confidence motion against the Chairperson, even though petitioner had faced both the actions, firstly, when she was elected as Chairperson in 2020 and thereafter facing No-confidence motion in 2024. The said conduct of petitioner only showed that she believed in adopting the approach of approbate and reprobate to suit her convenience and suffered from selective amnesia.

The Court observed that based on the direction both in the Notification issued by the Telangana State Election Commission on 27-3-2024, and the Election Programme issued by the State Election Commission, Respondent 3, who was a gazetted officer and authorized by Respondent 2, had issued the impugned notice dated 30-3-2024. Thus, the Court held that the action of Respondent 3 in issuing the impugned notice dated 30-3-2024 did not suffer from any infirmity and was in accordance with the Notification and the Rules.

The Court further observed that petitioner under the guise of challenging the notice dated 30-3-2024 was indirectly laying a challenge to the election process notified, vide notification dated 27-3-2024. Thus, the Court relied on Shaji K. Joseph v. V. Viswanath, (2016) 4 SCC 429 and opined that once a notification was issued, setting in motion the election process, the same should not ordinarily be interfered with. The Court opined that the writ petition filed by petitioner was without any basis, frivolous and misconceived and was liable to be dismissed.

The Court also opined that petitioner was in the habit of taking liberties in approaching the Court by filing writ petitions without any basis, not disclosing all the relevant facts, making uncorroborated allegations, and resorting to suppression, wasting judicial time, warranting imposition of exemplary costs. Thus, the Court dismissed the writ petition with the exemplary cost of Rs 1 lakh to be paid to the Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee.

The Court added a post-script directing the Registry to mark a copy of this order to the State Bar Council, so that the Bar Council could take steps to inculcate discipline in the Advocates while at the time of enrollment as well as at the time periodical renewal of the certificate of practice.

[Kotha Arthica v. State of Telangana, 2024 SCC OnLine TS 494, Order dated 10-4-2024]

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Venkata Raghu Mannepalli, Advocate

For the Respondent: GP for Revenue

Buy Constitution of India  HERE

Constitution of India

The post ‘Take steps to inculcate discipline in Advocates’; Telangana HC directs State Bar Council after advocate uses high-pitched, intimidating voice appeared first on SCC Times.

]]> https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/04/18/telhc-directs-state-bar-council-to-take-steps-to-inculcate-discipline-in-advocates-legal-news/feed/ 0 320272 NCLT imposes exemplary cost of ₹ 5 Lakhs on Trimex Industries (P) Ltd for filing frivolous litigation https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/05/06/nclt-impose-exemplary-cost-five-lakhs-trimex-industries-frivolous-litigation-legal-news/ https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/05/06/nclt-impose-exemplary-cost-five-lakhs-trimex-industries-frivolous-litigation-legal-news/#respond Sat, 06 May 2023 10:00:20 +0000 https://www.scconline.com/blog/?p=291464 NCLT imposed cost to restain Trimex Industries (P) Ltd. from filing frivolous applications which consume Tribunal's valuable resources and time.

The post NCLT imposes exemplary cost of ₹ 5 Lakhs on Trimex Industries (P) Ltd for filing frivolous litigation appeared first on SCC Times.

]]>

National Company Law Tribunal: While dismissing the application the Division Bench of Dr. N. Venkata Ramakrishna Badrinath (Judicial Member) and Charan Singh (Technical Member), imposed cost of ₹ 5 Lakhs on the applicant to restrain him from filing such applications in future which consume lot of resources and time of tribunal for no meaningful purpose.

Factual Matrix

In the instant matter, the applicant-Operational Creditor (Trimex Industries (P) Ltd.) has preferred an application under S. 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) read with R. 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 seeking to set aside the ‘Letter of Intent’ dated 19-10-2022 issued by the Resolution Professional (’respondent 4’) confirming Jindal Saw Ltd. as the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA)(‘respondent 3’). The applicant further prayed to call for fresh Resolution Plans with respect to the Corporate Debtor (‘respondent 1’)(Sathavahana Ispat Ltd.) by extending the time period for CIRP and bar Jindal Saw Limited, its sister concerns or its alter egos from participating in the fresh CIRP process.

Applicant’s Contentions

The applicant stated that the primary source of funds used to purchase the account and financial debt of the Corporate Debtor is derived from companies that are part of SRA-Jindal group. The applicant contended that the Resolution Professional didn’t disclose before this Tribunal about selection of SRA and that it would pay its repair fee as part of CIRP costs, moreover, the CoC (Sole Member/ JC Flowers) also acted in a non-transparent manner. The applicant further added that Jindal Saw does not qualify to be SRA as it does not fulfil the requirements under S. 29A of the IBC.

Respondent’s Contentions

The respondents stated that the applicant had previously prayed to restrain the CoC from even considering the Resolution Plan of SRA but the same was dismissed by this Tribunal and then preferred an appeal before the NCLAT which is currently pending. The respondents contended that rather than waiting for NCLAT’s decision, the applicant preferred the present application on the same grounds. The respondents further contended that the applicant also filed SLP before the Supreme Court through a proxy on the same ground which is dismissed by the Supreme Court. The respondents contended that the applicant time and again has failed to establish its locus standi or cause for filing these proceedings. The respondents lastly contended that the application is barred by principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata.

Court’s Observation

1. Whether purchase of financial debt by JC Flowers ARC (P) Ltd. from banks and raising of funds for completing the transaction from Hexa Securities & Finance Ltd. and Siddeshwari Tradex (P) Ld. has any angel of collusion with SRA as alleged by applicant?

NCLT observed that the allegation of the applicant is not tenable as the relationship based on which this allegation is put up is non-existent since more than 13 years and issuing debentures and subscribing to them is a very common method of raising funds in corporate world.

“If we extend our enquiry into past so many years of their antecedents and existence and delve deep into all the layers of corporate structure, we will find that most of the corporates are related/ connected to each other in one or the other way … The Companies which are in need of funds issue debentures and the Companies which have surplus funds subscribe to them to earn interest income. Further the companies generally invest in debentures of those companies whose credentials are well known to them to ensure safety of their funds.”

2. Whether appointment of Mr. Bhuwan Madan as IRP involves any conflict of interest and the act of changing the scope of repair and maintenance contract after his appointment is an act of collusion of IRP and COC with SRA?

NCLT observed that the applicant has failed to establish any of the relationship between the two Companies as group companies as stipulated by RBI, moreover, after verifying the available facts, it is clear that the whole exercise of awarding the contract was transparent and open to everyone without any collusiveness in it.

3. Whether SRA attract provision of S. 29A IBC on account of having entered an Operation, Maintenance and Management (OMM) agreement with SRP in 2019 and thus transfer of technology between SRA and Corporate Debtor?

NCLT observed that though OMM agreement was executed by both the parties but the same was not implemented, therefore, no question of applicability of S. 29A IBC against SRA arises in the present case.

NCLT observed that the applicant lacks bona-fide in approaching this Tribunal by not filing objection against inclusion of SRA as Prospective Resolution Applicant (PRA) when had opportunity thereby waiving its right to object under Regulation 36A (11) of the CIRP Regulations. NCLT observed that

“…applicant has no locus standi to file the above case and applicant needs to be put to heavy cost to restrain him from filing such applications in future which consume lot of resources and time of tribunal for no meaningful purpose.”

NCLT’s Verdict

NCLT dismissed the application by applicant-Operational Creditor seeking to set aside the letter of intent dated 19-10-2022 issued by the Resolution Professional with costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- payable to Prime Minister’s Relief Fund/ Bharat Kosh within 15 days from the date of order.

Note: The Resolution Professional had filed an application under S. 30(6) of the IBC for approval of Resolution Plan of SRA and the same is allowed by the NCLT vide order dated 31-03-2023 in Thirumala Logistics (P) Ltd. v. Sathavahana Ispat Ltd., IA (IBC) No.1198 of 2022.

[Trimex Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sathavahana Ispat Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine NCLT 104, order dated 31-03-2023]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Shri Avinash Desai (Senior Advocate), Ms. Mrudula Sarampally and Ms. Mahathi Reddy, Counsel for the Applicant;

Shri Alay Razvi and Shri Shashank Agarwal, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1;

Juris Corp, Counsel for the Respondent No. 2;

Shri Daizy Chawla, Counsel for the Respondent No. 3;

Shri Alay Razvi and Shri Shashank Agarwal, Counsel for the Respondent No. 4.

The post NCLT imposes exemplary cost of ₹ 5 Lakhs on Trimex Industries (P) Ltd for filing frivolous litigation appeared first on SCC Times.

]]> https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/05/06/nclt-impose-exemplary-cost-five-lakhs-trimex-industries-frivolous-litigation-legal-news/feed/ 0 291464 AFT | “Gross injustice done is a case of mind set and adhering to old junk system”; Tribunal imposes exemplary cost of Rs. 75,000 on government for not implementing the order of the High Court for about 23 years https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/11/17/gross-injustice-done-is-a-case-of-mind-set-and-adhering-to-old-junk-system/ https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/11/17/gross-injustice-done-is-a-case-of-mind-set-and-adhering-to-old-junk-system/#comments Wed, 17 Nov 2021 09:30:56 +0000 https://www.scconline.com/blog/?p=257202 Armed Forces Tribunal: The Division Bench of Justice Umesh Chandra Srivastava and Vice Admiral Abhay Raghunath Karve, Member (A) slammed the Union

The post AFT | “Gross injustice done is a case of mind set and adhering to old junk system”; Tribunal imposes exemplary cost of Rs. 75,000 on government for not implementing the order of the High Court for about 23 years appeared first on SCC Times.

]]> Armed Forces Tribunal: The Division Bench of Justice Umesh Chandra Srivastava and Vice Admiral Abhay Raghunath Karve, Member (A) slammed the Union of India opining that gross injustice done to the applicant was a case of mind set and adhering to old junk system. Opining that it requires interference by administration of justice so that one has to obey and respect law, the Bench remarked,

“It is a matter of great surprise that 23 years have elapsed but order of High Court Allahabad has not yet been complied with and respondents are stating that compliance of order is in process.”

Brief facts of the case were that the applicant’s husband was enrolled in the army on 15-12-1971 and dismissed from service on 22-11-1986, after completing about 14 years and 11 months of service. Noticeably, on 03-02-1985 the husband of the applicant had written a to Defence Secretary, Chief of Army Staff and GOC-in C, Southern Command containing allegation against his Squadron Commander. The matter was investigated and disciplinary action was taken against her husband for direct writing to superior officers.

The applicant’s husband was tried by District Court Martial (DCM) for an offence under Army Act Section 56 (a); i.e. making a false accusation. Consequently, he was punished and was dismissed from service.

The husband of the applicant preferred appeal before the Allahabad High Court which was allowed His appeal was allowed vide order dated 27.07.1998 and order of punishment awarded by DCM was quashed and respondents were directed to reinstate husband of the applicant in service and treat him in continuous service with all service benefits including increment and promotion as per relevant rules.

The grievance of the applicant was that instead of complying with the decision of the High Court, the respondents had filed an appeal on 18-11-1998 against the judgment which was dismissed on 08-07-2010. During pendency of the appeal, husband of the applicant died on 31-01-2002. The applicant contended that though there was no any stay against the order of High Court, the same was not complied with.

Noticing that the High Court had passed detailed order in favour of the husband of the applicant granting all service benefits including promotion and pay and allowance and that the appeal against the order was dismissed in the year 2010, the Bench opined that the respondents should have immediately reinstate the husband of the applicant in service and grant his dues.

The public interest demands that administration must abide by the promises held out to citizens. It is totally immoral to go back from the promises held out by the mighty state to the detriment of a small people.

Considering that the husband of the applicant died during pendency of the matter and applicant suffered mental pain and agony for more than 34 years and had to enter in unnecessarily litigation even after her case was decided by the High Court, the Bench imposed exemplary cost of Rs. 75,000 on the respondents for not implementing the order of the High Court for about 23 years.

Accordingly, the respondents were directed to grant all service benefits as applicable to the husband of the applicant in terms of order of the High Court Allahabad along with arrears and further grant family pension to the applicant from the next date of death of her husband within four months. Interest at the rate of 8% was also awarded on the amount accrued from due date till the date of actual payment. [Gulkandi Devi v. Union of India, Original Application No. 605 of 2018, decided on 13-10-2021]

Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Appearance by:

For the Applicant: Advocate Birendra Prasad Singh

For Union of India: Central Govt. Counsel RC Shukla

The post AFT | “Gross injustice done is a case of mind set and adhering to old junk system”; Tribunal imposes exemplary cost of Rs. 75,000 on government for not implementing the order of the High Court for about 23 years appeared first on SCC Times.

]]> https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/11/17/gross-injustice-done-is-a-case-of-mind-set-and-adhering-to-old-junk-system/feed/ 1 257202 MCI Scam: Supreme Court imposes exemplary cost of Rs. 25 Lakhs on CJAR; Petition dismissed https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2017/12/04/mci-scam-supreme-court-imposes-exemplary-cost-rs-25-lakhs-cjar-petition-dismissed/ https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2017/12/04/mci-scam-supreme-court-imposes-exemplary-cost-rs-25-lakhs-cjar-petition-dismissed/#respond Mon, 04 Dec 2017 08:16:45 +0000 http://www.scconline.com/blog/?p=173154 Supreme Court: Dismissing the petition seeking a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction of similar nature to constitute a

The post MCI Scam: Supreme Court imposes exemplary cost of Rs. 25 Lakhs on CJAR; Petition dismissed appeared first on SCC Times.

]]> Supreme Court: Dismissing the petition seeking a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction of similar nature to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a retired Chief Justice of India to investigate in the matter of alleged conspiracy and payment of bribes for procuring favourable order in a matter relating to Medical admissions, the 3-judge bench of RK Agarwal, Arun Mishra and AM Khanwilkar, JJ imposed the cost of Rs. 25 lakhs on the petitioner i.e. Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) represented by Advocate Prashant Bhushan and directed that the sum be deposited before the Registry of this Court within six weeks whereafter the said amount shall be transferred to Supreme Court Bar Association Advocates’ Welfare Fund.

Prashant Bhushan had submitted before the Court that the purpose of filing this petition is not to name any Judge of this Court but to protect the independence of the judiciary and in order to arrive at an impartial investigation, this Court may appoint a SIT headed by a retired Chief Justice of India. He had brought to the Court’s notice that in the FIR names of various persons have been mentioned as suspected accused along with other unknown public servants and private persons and that one does not know how many public and private persons are involved in it and the matter relates to huge gratification for inducing public servants in a matter pending before this Court.

Attoney General KK Venugopal, on the other hand, said that the present petition was an abuse of the process of court as the same bench had recently dismissed the petition filed on the same premise by advocate Kamini Jaiswal.

The Court, calling the petition wholly frivolous, contemptuous and unwarranted, said that the petition:

“aims at scandalizing the highest judicial system of the country, without any reasonable basis and filed in an irresponsible manner, that too by a body of persons professing to espouse the cause of accountability.”

The Court, hence, dismissed the petition with exemplary costs on CJAR in order to ensure that such attempt is not repeated in future. [Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India,  2017 SCC OnLine SC 1406, decided on 01.12.2017]

The post MCI Scam: Supreme Court imposes exemplary cost of Rs. 25 Lakhs on CJAR; Petition dismissed appeared first on SCC Times.

]]> https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2017/12/04/mci-scam-supreme-court-imposes-exemplary-cost-rs-25-lakhs-cjar-petition-dismissed/feed/ 0 173154