Delhi High Court imposes ₹1 lakh cost on IDBI bank for seeking recall of order four months after it was dropped as party to an appeal

The Court noted that IDBI bank was dropped as party on request of the counsel who appeared for it, and its subsequent application seeking recall amounted to an abuse of process of law.
Delhi HC
Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court recently imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on IDBI bank for changing its stand repeatedly and seeking recall of an order four months after it was passed.

A Division Bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Saurabh Banerjee was dealing with an application filed by IDBI bank for recall of the order of November 15, 2022 passed by the court dropping it as a party in the appeal.

“Present application is misuse of judicial process. Bona fide mistake, no doubt, can be and should be condoned. However, if any of litigants, like the appellant, is found to change his stand, frequently, and wasting the precious public time, then such a litigant is very much liable to pay cost. Moreover, finding no merit in the present application, it is dismissed with cost of ₹1,00,000/- to be paid in favour of AWWA – Army Wife Welfare Association for their welfare,” the Court ordered. 

The Court noted that the order was passed after a counsel for IDBI and said that it cannot be made party in the appeal because it was not a party before single-judge.

However, now the counsel appearing is saying that lawyer who appeared on November 15 was a proxy counsel and there were no such instructions from the bank, the Court observed.

“When learned counsel for applicant/IDBI submits that the present application has been filed seeking recall of order dated 15.11.2022 passed by this Court, this Court observed that the present application is misuse of judicial process of law, he submitted that the statement made on 15.11.2022 was not on behalf of IDBI bank/his client, however, bona fidely admitted having made a mistake and sought an apology from this Court,” the Court said.

It further noted that the application was filed after a lapse of four months and an amended memo of parties was also filed after the order was passed.

“Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant, who at the first instance supported the present application though later admitted having done so without instructions from his client, is also liable to prosecuted for contempt of Court or bear costs, however, we refrain from doing so.”

The Court therefore, disposed of the application.

The IDBI bank was represented through advocates Yargyal and Rajive R Raj.

Advocates Rajiv Bajaj and Kara Prakash appeared for the appellant Bela Goyal Proprietor of Ispat Sangrah India.

Senior Advocate Pinky Anand with advocates Adarsh Kothari, Sardamini Sharma, Reeva Gujral, Adees Jasmine Kaur and Shantany Raj represented the respondent VIIPL-MIPL JV (Jaipur).

[Read Order]

Bela Goyal Proprietor of Inspat Sangrah India v VIIPL-MIPL JV (Jaipur) & Ors.pdf
Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news