Bombay High Court Fines ₹5 Lakh for Wasting 2.5 Hours on a Frivolous Petition.
The Bombay High Court fined a litigant ₹5 lakh for submitting a pointless writ petition that took up more than two and a half hours of the court’s time. The issue involved land acquired for the Kolhapur Airport, owned by Minakshi Balasao Magdum, a widow, and her family. GB Industries, a registered partnership firm, had been using the land under a license agreement that ended in March 2020. Even after the agreement expired, the firm filed a writ petition asking for compensation, claiming they had tenancy rights and trying to stop the landowners from being dispossessed without payment.
Justices GS Kulkarni and Advait M Sethna expressed worry about the rise of frivolous lawsuits, highlighting that they waste court resources and affect genuine claimants. They stated, “By wasting over 2.30 hours of the Court’s time and delaying other litigants, the petitioner knowingly misused the Court’s time. In these times of increasing court pressure, it is concerning that litigants continue to push such frivolous claims.” The Court deemed the firm’s arguments unfounded, pointing out that their license had expired and they had no legal right to claim tenancy.
Advocate Shrikrishna Ganbavle represented the petitioner, while Advocate R.M. Haridas represented the Respondents. During the hearing, the firm’s lawyer spent almost fifty minutes presenting their case. However, the Court noted that the firm had previously lost a civil suit aimed at proving a tenant-landlord relationship, which was not backed by the expired license agreement. The Court determined that both the writ petition and the earlier suit were filed solely to harass the landowners and block their land acquisition compensation. The Court remarked, “Such unreasonable persistence by the litigant cannot be ignored. The Court will not tolerate the misuse of legal processes. Those who can afford to misuse the law due to their resources must be considered when the Court dismisses such cases with significant costs.”
As a result, the Court ordered GB Industries to pay a cost of ₹5 lakh within two weeks. It warned that if the payment was not made, the amount would be recovered as land revenue, and the firm’s assets along with the personal properties of its partners could be seized.
Cause Title: GB Industries Reg. Partnership v. Minakshi Balasao Magdum & Ors.,
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocate Shrikrishna Ganbavle, along with Advocates Ruturaj Pawar, Dheeraj Patil
Respondents: Advocate R.M. Haridas and Advocates Prasad P. Kulkarni, Somanath Thongal, and Ananda Chavan, Additional Government Pleader A.I. Patel and Advocates M.S. Bane, Nitin Deshpande
