49. It is a typical example how a litigation proceeds and continues and in the end there is a profit for the wrongdoers.
50. Learned Amicus articulated common mans general impression about litigation in following words :
Make any false averment, conceal any fact, raise any plea, produce any false document, deny any genuine document, it will successfully stall the litigation, and in any case, delay the matter endlessly. The other party will be coerced into a settlement which will be profitable for me and the probability of the court ordering prosecution for perjury is less than that of meeting with an accident while crossing the road.
28. In our opinion, the present petition is nothing but a gross abuse of process of law and the revision petition is totally false, frivolous and bogus one, which is required to be dismissed with punitive costs of Rs.75,000/-.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Narayana Iit Academy vs Atishya Jain, on 14 February, 2012
REVISION PETITION NO.4142 OF 2011
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/105078049/
R. Narasimha Reddy Vs Kuchakula Surender Reddy ( FA No 502 of 2011, decided on March 5, 2012), the Commission had said: “Equity demands that such unscrupulous litigants whose only aim and object is to deprive the opposite party (complainants or consumers) of the fruits of the decree must be dealt with a heavy hand.” Punitive damages of Rs 1 lakh were imposed on a builder in this case for filing vexatious appeal.
Emaar MGF Land Ltd Vs Karnail Singh and Another (FA No 342 of 2014, pronounced on July 25, 2014), the apex consumer court came down heavily upon the realtor for ‘gross abuse of the process of law’ and imposed exemplary damages of Rs 5 lakh. While doing so, the Commission quoted the Supreme Court in Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors Vs Nirmala Devi and Ors (CA No 4912-4913 of 2011, decided on July 4, 2011) wherein it was observed that unless the courts ensure that wrong doers are denied profit or undue benefit from frivolous litigation, it would become very difficult to curb such practices.
the Delhi Development Authority Vs D.C. Sharma (RP No 895 of 2013, decided on Feb 18, 2014), for example, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission expressed its strong displeasure over those who filed frivolous appeals and slapped a penalty of Rs 5 lakh on the Delhi Development Authority. Quoting several Supreme Court judgements on the subject, the two member bench of the Commission, consisting Justice V.B. Gupta and Rekha Gupta said: “… no leniency should be shown to such type of litigants, who, in order to cover up their own fault and negligence, go on filing meritless petitions in different Fora.” the apex consumer court pointed out that the complaint was not false and frivolous, but the defence put up by the DDA was!
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/spectrum/society/-false-frivolous-or-pure-harassment/392434.html
22. Honble Supreme Court in S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs Vs. Jagannath (dead) by LRs & Ors., (1994) 1 SCC 1 has observed ;
The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the Court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, whos case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
23. In Ravinder Kaur Vs. Ashok Kumar, AIR 2004 SC 904, Apex Court observed ;
Courts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgment debtor to deny the decree holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. These type of errors on the part of the judicial forum only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing laws delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system.
24. It is well settled that no leniency should be shown to such type of litigants who in order to cover up their own fault and negligence, goes on filing meritless petitions in different foras. Time and again Courts have held that if any litigant approaches the Court of equity with unclean hands, suppress the material facts, make false averments in the petition and tries to mislead and hoodwink the judicial Forums, then his petition should be thrown away at the threshold. Equity demands that such unscrupulous litigants whose only aim and object is to deprive the opposite party of the fruits of the decree must be dealt with heavy hands.
25. Now question which arises for consideration is as to what should be the quantum of costs which should be imposed upon the petitioners for dragging the respondent upto this fora, when petitioners had no case at all. It is not that every order passed by the judicial fora is to be challenged by the litigants even if the same are based on sound reasonings.
26. Apex Court in Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors. Vs. Nirmala Devi and Ors., Civil Appeal Nos.4912-4913 of 2011 decided on July 4, 2011 has observed ;
45. We are clearly of the view that unless we ensure that wrong doers are denied profit or undue benefit from the frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigations. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the Courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that courts otherwise scarce and valuable time is consumed or more appropriately wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases.
46. Usually the court should be cautious and extremely careful while granting ex-parte ad interim injunctions. The better course for the court is to give a short notice and in some cases even dasti notice, hear both the parties and then pass suitable biparte orders. Experience reveals that ex-parte interim injunction orders in some cases can create havoc and getting them vacated or modified in our existing judicial system is a nightmare. Therefore, as a rule, the court should grant interim injunction or stay order only after hearing the defendants or the respondents and in case the court has to grant ex-parte injunction in exceptional cases then while granting injunction it must record in the order that if the suit is eventually dismissed, the plaintiff or the petitioner will have to pay full restitution, actual or realistic costs and mesne profits.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal
1. Shri Dhanajay Nagesh Naik & Ors. vs Shri Sudam Gopal Pednekar on 27 April, 2012
REVISION PETITION NO. 144 OF 2012
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/53029117/?type=print
No comments:
Post a Comment