coronavirus update indiaas on : 25 October 2020 06:29 GMT+5:30
"No More Tareek Pe Tareek" Says Bombay High Court In A 2009 Case
"No more 'tareek pe tareek'. Enough is enough," speaks Bombay High Court at financial capital Mumbai while ruling out any more adjournments in a case, and imposed a fine of Rs. 4.50 lakh on a public charitable trust for failing to file an affidavit since 2016.
- Shikhar Thakur
- Posted by
- March 05, 2018 17:38 IST
New Delhi: "No more 'tareek pe tareek'. Enough is enough," speaks Bombay High Court at financial capital Mumbai while ruling out any more adjournments in a case, and imposed a fine of Rs. 4.50 lakh on a public charitable trust for failing to file an affidavit since 2016.Justice Gautam Patel last week passed the order directing 'Ram Nagar Trust' to pay one thousand rupees per day for the 450-day delay to the defendant in the suit filed by the trust in 2009.
In September 2016 The Court noted that, the high court had framed issue in the suit and directed both the plaintiff (trust) and the defendants to submit before the registry an affidavit of documents they would be relying on.Last week, when the suit came up before Justice Patel, the trust's lawyer sought a week's time to submit the same.
This was opposed by the defendants who claimed that time and again adjournments were being sought by the plaintiff trust.Agreeing to this, Justice Patel in his order said, "No more adjournments. No more 'tareek pe tareek'. Enough is enough".
"That a court will endlessly grant adjournments is not something that parties or advocates can take for granted. Nor should they assume that there will be no consequences to continued defaults and unexplained delay," Justice Patel said.
"Computed at Rs. 1000 per day for each day's delay for 450 days, the costs work out to Rs. 4,50,000. This amount of Rs. 4,50,000 will be paid to the first defendant as costs by 7th March 2018," the court said.The court added that fixing random figures like Rs. 5,000 or Rs. 25,000 was counter productive as parties think such costs are negligible.
Cost may be real. They must be sufficient to convey the message that non-compliance with our orders brings consequences; that these consequences are inevitable and unavoidable; and the consequences are not some piffling trifle," Justice Patel said.
He refused to accept the contention of the plaintiff's lawyer that it was a charitable trust and that the suit pertained to land for educational purposes.