"Multiple affidavits attempt to delay proceedings:" Bombay High Court imposes ₹2 lakh costs on BJP MP's sugar factory

The Bombay High Court recently pulled up a litigant for filing successive affidavits in an ongoing case in what the court termed as an attempt to delay the proceedings [Pravara Renewable Energy Ltd. v. Padmashri Dr. Vitthalrao Vikhe Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd]..Justice Girish Kulkarni deprecated the conduct of respondent-sugar factory owned by BJP Member of Parliament from Ahmednagar district, Sujay Vikhe Patil.The single-judge remarked that the respondent-factory could not have taken the process of the Court for granted causing serious prejudice and delay to the petitioner who approached it for urgent reliefs.“The respondent could not have taken the process of the Court, for granted so as not to maintain its sanctity and the procedural discipline and cause a serious prejudice to the litigant who has knocked the doors of the Court to seek urgent reliefs, by subverting the proceedings and/or delaying the proceedings by repeated pleadings possibly to divert the focus of proceedings. Such attempts of filing successive affidavits that too in the midst of hearing of the proceedings also of a nature not permitted by the Court, cannot go unnoticed. Such attempt of the respondent is required to be reprimanded,” the 146-page order stated.The single-judge imposed costs of ₹2 lakh to be paid by the sugar factory, The costs has to be deposited with the Dean of the JJ Hospital to be utilised for the terminally ill and poor cancer patients within a week from the order, the Court directed.The order was passed in a petition filed against the sugar factory under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act for interim measures pending the arbitral proceedings.The High Court noted from the pleadings that the sugar factory had filed five affidavits, some of which had been vehemently opposed by the petitioner, a special purpose vehicle (SPV) called Pravara Renewable Energy Ltd, undertaken to install and run a co-generation plant at the sugar factory..The High Court said that filing of multiple successive affidavits in the middle of the hearing caused insurmountable inconvenience to the Court while adjudicating the proceedings.In view of this, Justice Kulkarni opined that such conduct especially in commercial matters, cannot be accepted..The petitioner had initiated the present plea seeking directions on respondent's right to interfere with the petitioner’s managing and operating of the co-generation plant. By way of background, multiple agreements had been executed between both parties which started with a Project Development Agreement (PDA) of July 2010 by which the petitioner agreed to set up a co—generation power plant on the land provided by the respondent. As per the PDA, the respondent was supplying steam and electricity in the plant to the petitioner to keep the plant functional.Disputes arose between the parties due to non-supply of the fuel, the petitioner claimed, followed by threat and intimidation to stop the petitioner from accessing the plant, which led to the present petition.The petitioner sought directions on respondent's right to interfere with the petitioner’s management and operation of the co-generation plant.Reliefs were also sought against attempt to oust the petitioner from operating the plant..The respondent was using its dominating position as a powerful sugar factory, the petitioner submitted.The petitioner contended that urgent orders were required else it would cause them irreparable loss, and the damage that could be caused due to improper management of the plant could cost human lives..The respondent opposed the relief alleging suppression of material facts.They submitted that the plant is hypothecated to its lenders by the petitioner and is being considered for attachment in a separate litigation before the High Court.Further, it was alleged that the petitioner has not made payment of its debts owed to the respondent under the PDA.The respondent also claimed that by trying to stall functioning of the factory just before the ‘crushing season’, the petitioner was attempting to extort money from respondent so that they are made to purchase the plant at an exorbitant price..The Court, however, did not agree with the respondent’s contention."The respondent at its convenience has been changing its stands, with a common theme, …that the respondent’s intention is only to take over the co-gen plant, as if it is its own property, in complete deviation from what has been agreed between the parties on the take over of the plant, as on the ‘asset transfer date’,” the Court stated.It further observed that the respondent was preventing the petitioner from operating a plant owned by them. “The respondent is attempting to illegally takeover the management and operation of the plant and that too in a coercive manner ... If this be the case, the argument of prejudice to the respondent has no legs to stand," the Court said. .Senior Advocate Zal Andhyarijuna with advocates Karl Tamboly, Subhash Jadhav, Amit Patil, Vinit Kamdar and Shruti Sardessai briefed by Parinam Law Associates appeared for PREL.Senior Advocate Darius Khambata and Kevic Setalvad with advocates Ammar Faizullabhoy, Nayan Parjiea, Virit Dhanki and Vibhuti Keny briefed Olive Law for the respondent.Senior Advocate Dr Birendra Saraf with advocate Ankita Singh briefed by A&P Partners for appear for interveners..[Read Judgment]