Calcutta High Court emphasizes the value of court time, lamenting its misuse by dishonest litigants. The court criticizes the hijacking of the legal system, highlighting the need for honesty and integrity in legal proceedings. The statement highlights the importance of upholding justice efficiently and fairly.
Calcutta: The Calcutta High Court recently emphasized the importance of respecting the Court’s valuable time and highlighted the issue of dishonest litigants who attempt to exploit the system.
Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur reprimanded a Dubai-based company for submitting an application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, despite the High Court lacking jurisdiction over the matter.
Read Also: Lok Sabha Elections: BJP Candidate’s Urgent Hearing Refused by Cal HC
In criticizing the company for squandering the court’s time, Justice Kapur remarked,
“The time of the court is a precious national asset, with our dockets constantly filled. It is regrettable that despite the presence of civil libertarians, pension seekers, motor vehicle accident claimants, octogenarians, and undertrials awaiting justice, unscrupulous litigants and their advisors manipulate the system, often having their cases prioritized.”
The Dubai company issued an apology for mistakenly approaching the wrong forum, but the Court criticized its actions, stating that the plea intentionally and deliberately filed.
The judge remarked,
“The error in filing this plea is unmistakable and cannot be deemed accidental or in good faith, but rather as deliberate, intentional, and possibly with ulterior motives. While punitive costs could have been imposed, considering the unconditional apologies from all lawyers involved and exercising discretion with compassion, the plea is dismissed on grounds of maintainability. However, a cautionary note is extended to each advocate involved, urging them to avoid such actions in the future.”
The Court further remarked that while there is a possibility that the plea filed collusively, it refrained from delving into such speculation at this juncture.
The judge stated,
“I opt not to delve into whether the proceedings between the parties are collusive or not… This is not the appropriate stage for discussing the role of Advocates in the administration of justice. It is incumbent upon members of the Bar to reflect on their actions and undertake measures to alleviate the Courts from such unpleasant duties,”
In relation to a dispute between a Kolkata-based company and a Dubai-based company, the Dubai-based company eventually approached the High Court seeking the appointment of an arbitrator.
On May 3, the High Court recognized that the dispute between the parties an international commercial arbitration case, and that only the Chief Justice of India or his delegate had the authority to appoint an arbitrator in such cases. The Court determined that any application made before the High Court in this regard misconceived and not permissible.
Once the Court highlighted this aspect, the legal representatives of the petitioner-company admitted without reservation that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to handle the matter. Each of the advocates representing the petitioner signed an unconditional apology for filing the application. Even the senior advocate representing the respondent-company acknowledged that an inadvertent and sincere error occurred.
Read Also: “In Rape Cases, DNA Evidence Not Conclusive Proof”: Cal HC
Regarding the lapse, the Court expressed,
“While wise judicial guidance advises against showing any bias in judgments and advocates for temperate language, there are moments when public interest necessitates labelling a fraud as such, both for the perpetrator and those affected by their actions. It is crucial to acknowledge conduct appropriately, using plain-speaking if needed, to uphold the institution’s reputation and inspire trust in it.”
Based on these observations, the Court rejected the plea as, not valid.
Advocates Rishav Banerjee, AK Awasthi, S Gole, and P Shaha present on behalf of the petitioner.
Senior advocate Abhrajit Mitra, along with advocates Rishad Medora and A Chakraborty, represented the respondent.