The Bombay High Court imposed fine on a litigant Rs.5 lakh for challenging the law that gives immunity to judges. The Court said her claims against two NCLT members were false and not supported by evidence. It was also found no good reason to consider her petition. The fine was imposed for misusing the legal process.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court dismissed a petition challenging the constitutionality of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, which is designed to shield judges and judicial officers from frivolous lawsuits.
The Court also imposed costs of Rs.5 lakhs on the petitioner, who not only contested the validity of the 1985 law but also accused two members of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Mumbai of bias.
The petitioner, a promoter of a Mumbai-based company, claimed she had experienced bias from the NCLT members during insolvency proceedings involving her company. Additionally, the petition sought to prevent the two NCLT members from exercising jurisdiction over the ongoing insolvency case.
A Bench comprising Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Ashwin D. Bhobe determined that the allegations against the tribunal members were unfounded and warranted dismissal.
The Court stated,
“Besides making unsubstantiated, baseless, and unfounded allegations against the two learned members of the Tribunal, there are neither any circumstances set out in the Petition, nor is there any justification to entertain these prayers.”
The Court expressed frustration over the petitioner’s misuse of judicial resources, noting that she had consumed three hours of Court time while seeking urgent relief, even though the daily docket was already filled with 150 to 200 matters, including 100 to 125 urgent admission cases.
To accommodate her petition, the Court had to rearrange its schedule and postpone other cases, resulting in a significant loss of judicial time. Consequently, the Court imposed a total cost of Rs.5 lakhs, Rs.2.5 lakhs for wasting the Court’s time and another Rs.2.5 lakhs for her repeated, baseless claims.
The Court specified that these costs should be distributed to various charitable organizations, including those that support children, animals, welfare causes, and the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa.
The Court emphasized that such penalties are essential to deter unscrupulous litigants from wasting judicial resources and pursuing repetitive, unfounded claims.
The case arose from ongoing insolvency proceedings against Manisha Nimesh Mehta’s company, Perfect Infraengineers Ltd., initiated by the Technology Development Board (TDB) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Mehta contested her company’s classification as a non-performing asset (NPA) by ICICI Bank during the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing that this designation denied her access to government-mandated loan repayment moratoriums and caused financial distress.
She also claimed that this classification led to actions under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act), jeopardizing her business. Aggrieved by the tribunal’s orders, Mehta challenged the immunity granted to judicial officers under Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, which protects judges from civil and criminal proceedings for actions taken in their judicial capacity.
In her petition, Mehta accused two NCLT members, Justice Virendrasingh G. Bisht (judicial member) and Prabhat Kumar (technical member), of bias and unfair treatment. She sought additional reliefs, including an order restraining ICICI Bank from proceeding with SARFAESI actions and preventing banks from obstructing her company’s operations.
During the hearing, Mehta’s counsel argued that judicial immunity should not apply in cases where judges act unfairly or dismiss evidence without proper consideration, particularly in matters involving financial distress. Representatives for ICICI Bank and other respondents contended that the petition was merely an attempt at forum shopping, referencing Mehta’s previous petitions on similar issues.
Ultimately, the Court dismissed Mehta’s claims, stating that the NCLT’s order to admit TDB’s insolvency application could not be deemed “perverse or illegal.”
It also criticized Mehta for attempting to mislead the Court by repeatedly challenging the same issues in different petitions.
Advocate Mathew Nedumpara and advocate Hemali Merva represented the petitioner.
Advocate Prashant Kamble and Additional Government Pleader Himashu Takke appeared for the State.
Advocate Sumedh Ruikar and advocate Viraj Shelatkar, instructed by advocate Pradip Yadav, represented TDB and its officers. Advocate Anshul Anjarlekar, instructed by Raval Shah & Co., appeared for the Board of Directors of ICICI Bank.
Advocate Yahya Batatawala and advocate Shneha Mishra represented a resolution professional.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
