The Bombay HC observed that “It is not just a matter of wasting the court’s time. It is the consumption of that time at the cost of other litigants.”
Recently, the Bombay High Court imposed a penalty of ₹3 Lakh on three litigants for wasting the court’s time by not making a timely request to amend their petition.
[Ali Mohammed Balwa v. ED and connected 2 petitions]A bench of Justices GS Patel and Neela Gokhale observed that consuming the Court’s time was both ‘unfair’ and ‘unconscionable’ to other litigants waiting patiently for their case.
The Court said that “The three petitions have taken the unconscionable amount of this Court’s time, although it was clear from the moment the matters were called that the very least, the Petitions ought to have considered amending the petition. It is not just a matter of wasting the Court’s time. It is the consumption of that time at the cost of other litigants, many of them in extremely dire straits, some very needy and in abject conditions.”
Previously, in the course of the hearing, the court had clarified its intention to reject the plea after hearing the counsel for the petitioners at length.
The council, however, sought time to avoid the dismissal of his plea and borrowed time to amend the petition to incorporate a factual development. This development was earlier informed by the opposing learned counsel to the court at the very beginning of the contentions. Taking a critical note of this aspect, the Court stated:
“Matters are worsened when, at the outset, before even arguments began, not only did Mr. Venegavkar for the Respondent in complete fairness point out the possible need for an amendment, but we too, asked Mr. Aggarwal if he wanted to amend. The answer was clearly no. Instead, this request for an amendment came only after more than an hour of persistent argumentation.”
The Court proceeded to impose a penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh on each petitioner (total of Rs. 3 Lakh) to be paid by 17 February 2024, to St Jude Child Care Centers. A voluntary organization that supports cancer-affected children and their families. The Court permitted the plea to be amended, subject to the payment of these costs.
The HC was dealing with three petitions.
One was filed by a company named Hotel Balwas Pvt. Ltd., and the other two petitions were filed by its owners, Ali Mohammed Balwa and Salim Usman Balwa.
An order of the Enforcement Directorate was challenged by the three petitions, under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for conducting a search and seizure on the company’s premises on suspicions of money laundering.
Advocate Hiten Venegavkar, on behalf of the ED, told the Court that post his order was passed, a provisional order to attach property that was allegedly the proceeds of a crime had been passed under Section 8 of PMLA by an adjudicating authority on 30 January, 2024.
He suggested that this development could be challenged by the Petitioners. The Court, as a result, expressed its opinion to grant the petitioners leave to amend their plea to incorporate this challenge.
However, the Counsel for the petitioners, Adv. Vijay Aggarwal and Chetan Kapadia rather focused their submissions on the ‘unreasoned order’ passed under Section 17 of PMLA.
Thereafter, the Court was unconvinced by the petitioners’ aspect on this case and indicated that it was inclined to not proceed with the plea, and reject it.
The leave to amend was however allowed, after the petition sought it, after imposing the costs on the petitioners for taking an ‘unconscionable’ amount of the Court’s time.
Read more: KERALA HC: EVERY DEATH OF PATIENT IS NOT MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE
