Justice GS Patel of the Bombay High Court appears to be following through on his mission to curb unnecessary delays in Court proceedings..This time, the judge has imposed exemplary costs of Rs 7,50,000 on a plaintiff-company, for its continued lackadaisical approach in presenting timely evidence before the Court..In an order passed earlier this week, Justice GS Patel expressed his displeasure over the excuses presented by the plaintiff to explain continuing delays on its part..“The order of costs is because of the extraordinary and unexplained delay in filing the application; on account of the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order of 8th February 2016 (SC Gupte J); and what I will only describe for now as the ‘inaccuracy’ — that euphemism is merely an act of undeserved kindness and should not be mistaken for anything else — of what is stated in the Affidavit in Support.”.The case can be traced back to an insurance claim made by SBI Global Factors Ltd. (plaintiff) against ICICI Lombard Global Insurance Co. Ltd. (defendant) in 2010..The issues for consideration in the case were framed by Justice KR Shriram back in October 2015. A schedule for hearing the case had also been fixed by Justice Shriram. The plaintiff was directed to file the list of witnesses and other requisite documents and present copies thereof to the defendant on or before December 4, 2015..However, the plaintiff sought extensions to file the same thrice thereafter i.e. on December 14, 2015, January 11, 2016 and February 8, 2016..The leave for the extension was sought on the ground that a pending case against the plaintiff in the Madras High Court prevented the production of certain documents at the time..However, Justice SC Gupte, who dealt with the case subsequently, saw no merit in this argument and proceeded to impose costs of Rs 75,000 on the plaintiff. In an order dated February 8, 2016, Justice Gupte observed,.“The directions passed by this Court on 29 October 2015 are in the nature of directions at the case management hearing. Despite specific directions in that behalf, time was sought on 14 December 2015, when it was made clear that no further accommodation would be granted. Once again, on 11 January 2016, this Court granted time of three weeks only way of indulgence and we are still without the Plaintiff’s list of witnesses, compilation of documents or affidavit of evidence in lieu of examination-in-chief. This cannot be countenanced….… though this Court would be perfectly justified in the facts of the case to dismiss the plaint for non-prosecution of the suit or foreclose the Plaintiff’s right to file affidavit of evidence and documents, in the interest of justice, I am of the view that non-compliance be condoned by ordering the Plaintiff to pay costs quantified at Rs. 75, 000/- to the Defendant.”.While this was the case, it appears that the plaintiff delayed the filing of an application to present additional evidence in support of a witness to the Court, now presided by Justice GS Patel..Further, the plaintiff had also failed to submit the list of witnesses and other documents in compliance with earlier court orders..What appears to have stoked Justice Patel’s ire is that the plaintiff offered the same excuse that was rejected by Justice Shriram in February 2016, to explain the delay in filing the application..Taking a serious view of the same, Justice Patel ordered the personal presence of the plaintiff-company’s representative before imposing costs. As noted in the order,.“The order of 8th February 2016 itself noted a then-existing delay on the part of the Plaintiff and imposed costs of Rs. 75,000/-. This does not seem to have had the necessary effect. This is one of many reasons why I required the presence of Mr Buch [plaintiff-company representative] in Court today.”.Justice Patel mentions that he is not addressing the matter on merits, given that the plaintiff has communicated his acceptance of the proposed order of costs through his counsel, Senior Advocate Shyam Mehta..“It is only because, pursuant to my oral directions yesterday, Mr Tushar Buch, the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Plaintiff is personally present in Court, and has before me today instructed Mr Mehta to state that the Plaintiff accepts the proposed order of costs and other conditions, that I will not further address the matter on merits….…His instructions to Mr Mehta before me in Court today are that the Plaintiff will accept the order of costs as also additional terms and conditions that are proposed, and which I have indicated to Mr Mehta.”.To ensure that the deterrent measure takes effect this time, the Court has directed the plaintiff to pay a whopping Rs 7,50,000 to the defendant on or before April 9..The payment of this sum is a condition precedent to allowing the application to produce additional evidence. The Court Registry has been instructed to accept the Affidavit of Evidence only on proof of payment of the costs..The plaintiff has also been directed to cover the cost of cross-examination to be undertaken thereafter. As per the order, this would include the commissioner’s fees, steno charges, venue and other costs, but not the defendant’s legal expenses..The case has been posted to be taken up next on April 17, on which day the schedule for cross-examination will be fixed by Justice Patel. The defendants in the case were represented by Advocate Shyam Kapadia along with Advocates Naval Sharma, Saket Satapathy and Shriya Luke of Tuli & Co..Last month, Justice Patel had imposed costs of Rs. 4.5 lakh on a charitable organisation for inordinate delay in complying with the High Court’s orders. This order was subsequently set aside partially by a Division Bench, and the costs were reduced to Rs. 50,000..Read Justice GS Patel’s order dated April 4, 2018 below:.Read Justice SC Gupte’s order dated February 8, 2018 below:
Justice GS Patel of the Bombay High Court appears to be following through on his mission to curb unnecessary delays in Court proceedings..This time, the judge has imposed exemplary costs of Rs 7,50,000 on a plaintiff-company, for its continued lackadaisical approach in presenting timely evidence before the Court..In an order passed earlier this week, Justice GS Patel expressed his displeasure over the excuses presented by the plaintiff to explain continuing delays on its part..“The order of costs is because of the extraordinary and unexplained delay in filing the application; on account of the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order of 8th February 2016 (SC Gupte J); and what I will only describe for now as the ‘inaccuracy’ — that euphemism is merely an act of undeserved kindness and should not be mistaken for anything else — of what is stated in the Affidavit in Support.”.The case can be traced back to an insurance claim made by SBI Global Factors Ltd. (plaintiff) against ICICI Lombard Global Insurance Co. Ltd. (defendant) in 2010..The issues for consideration in the case were framed by Justice KR Shriram back in October 2015. A schedule for hearing the case had also been fixed by Justice Shriram. The plaintiff was directed to file the list of witnesses and other requisite documents and present copies thereof to the defendant on or before December 4, 2015..However, the plaintiff sought extensions to file the same thrice thereafter i.e. on December 14, 2015, January 11, 2016 and February 8, 2016..The leave for the extension was sought on the ground that a pending case against the plaintiff in the Madras High Court prevented the production of certain documents at the time..However, Justice SC Gupte, who dealt with the case subsequently, saw no merit in this argument and proceeded to impose costs of Rs 75,000 on the plaintiff. In an order dated February 8, 2016, Justice Gupte observed,.“The directions passed by this Court on 29 October 2015 are in the nature of directions at the case management hearing. Despite specific directions in that behalf, time was sought on 14 December 2015, when it was made clear that no further accommodation would be granted. Once again, on 11 January 2016, this Court granted time of three weeks only way of indulgence and we are still without the Plaintiff’s list of witnesses, compilation of documents or affidavit of evidence in lieu of examination-in-chief. This cannot be countenanced….… though this Court would be perfectly justified in the facts of the case to dismiss the plaint for non-prosecution of the suit or foreclose the Plaintiff’s right to file affidavit of evidence and documents, in the interest of justice, I am of the view that non-compliance be condoned by ordering the Plaintiff to pay costs quantified at Rs. 75, 000/- to the Defendant.”.While this was the case, it appears that the plaintiff delayed the filing of an application to present additional evidence in support of a witness to the Court, now presided by Justice GS Patel..Further, the plaintiff had also failed to submit the list of witnesses and other documents in compliance with earlier court orders..What appears to have stoked Justice Patel’s ire is that the plaintiff offered the same excuse that was rejected by Justice Shriram in February 2016, to explain the delay in filing the application..Taking a serious view of the same, Justice Patel ordered the personal presence of the plaintiff-company’s representative before imposing costs. As noted in the order,.“The order of 8th February 2016 itself noted a then-existing delay on the part of the Plaintiff and imposed costs of Rs. 75,000/-. This does not seem to have had the necessary effect. This is one of many reasons why I required the presence of Mr Buch [plaintiff-company representative] in Court today.”.Justice Patel mentions that he is not addressing the matter on merits, given that the plaintiff has communicated his acceptance of the proposed order of costs through his counsel, Senior Advocate Shyam Mehta..“It is only because, pursuant to my oral directions yesterday, Mr Tushar Buch, the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Plaintiff is personally present in Court, and has before me today instructed Mr Mehta to state that the Plaintiff accepts the proposed order of costs and other conditions, that I will not further address the matter on merits….…His instructions to Mr Mehta before me in Court today are that the Plaintiff will accept the order of costs as also additional terms and conditions that are proposed, and which I have indicated to Mr Mehta.”.To ensure that the deterrent measure takes effect this time, the Court has directed the plaintiff to pay a whopping Rs 7,50,000 to the defendant on or before April 9..The payment of this sum is a condition precedent to allowing the application to produce additional evidence. The Court Registry has been instructed to accept the Affidavit of Evidence only on proof of payment of the costs..The plaintiff has also been directed to cover the cost of cross-examination to be undertaken thereafter. As per the order, this would include the commissioner’s fees, steno charges, venue and other costs, but not the defendant’s legal expenses..The case has been posted to be taken up next on April 17, on which day the schedule for cross-examination will be fixed by Justice Patel. The defendants in the case were represented by Advocate Shyam Kapadia along with Advocates Naval Sharma, Saket Satapathy and Shriya Luke of Tuli & Co..Last month, Justice Patel had imposed costs of Rs. 4.5 lakh on a charitable organisation for inordinate delay in complying with the High Court’s orders. This order was subsequently set aside partially by a Division Bench, and the costs were reduced to Rs. 50,000..Read Justice GS Patel’s order dated April 4, 2018 below:.Read Justice SC Gupte’s order dated February 8, 2018 below:
