Bombay High Court imposes ₹3 lakh costs on three litigants who took "unconscionable amount" of court's time

The Bombay High Court recently 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 three petitions have taken an unconscionable amount of this Court’s time, although it was clear from the moment the matters were called that, at the very least, the Petitioners 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," the Court said. .The Court had, earlier during the hearing, indicated their intention to reject the plea after hearing the counsel for the petitioners at length.In order to avoid the dismissal, the counsel sought time to amend the petition to incorporate a factual development. This development, however, was informed by the opposing counsel to the Court at the beginning of the arguments. Taking critical note of this aspect, the Court remarked:"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 impost a cost of ₹1 lakh on each petitioner (₹3 lakhs in total) to be paid by February 17, 2023, to St Jude Child Care Centres, a voluntary organisation that supports cancer-affected children and their families. The Court allowed the plea for amendment, subject to the payment of these costs. .The Court was dealing with three petitions - one filed by a company, Hotel Balwas Pvt. Ltd., and two by its owners, Ali Mohammed Balwa and Salim Usman Balwa. The three petitions challenged an order of the Enforcement Directorate 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 ED, informed the Court that after this 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 January 30, 2023. He suggested that this subsequent development could be challenged by the Balwas. The Court, in turn, expressed its inclination to grant the petitioners leave to amend their plea to incorporate this challenge. .However, the counsel for the petitioners, advocates Vijay Aggarwal and Chetan Kapadia, instead focused their submissions on the ‘unreasoned order’ passed under Section 17, PMLA. The Court was unconvinced by the petitioners' case on this aspect. .At this stage, when the Court indicated that it was not impressed with the arguments and was inclined to reject the case, the counsel sought leave to amend the petition. .The leave to amend was ultimately allowed by the Court, albeit, after imposing costs on the petitioners..[Read order]