11 Yrs Of Frivolous Litigation: Bombay High Court Reprimands Petitioner In Person, Imposes 1 Lakh Cost

The petitioner had filed multiple similar cases in the Bombay High Court as well as Supreme Court with the same material arguments and evidence.

"Since 2009, till date valuable time of this Court had been consumed by the petitioner by filing frivolous litigation", the court stated.

Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan in his judgment said that a review is not appeal in disguise and dismissed the petition.

"In the second review petition, the petitioner has literally reproduced and reiterated almost everything what has been stated by him in the Second Appeal as well as in his first review petition save and except anything to show as to how second review is tenable", the court said.

The court said that advanced age of the petitioner cannot be a reason to take a sympathetic view as he is "fully aware that he has been fighting a lost legal battle which has no merit at all".

"Such conduct is highly deprecated as the petitioner appears to be incorrigible", the court stated.

Anand Prabhakar Joshi, a former employee of Bank of Maharashtra was seeking a second review of an order dismissing his challenge against disciplinary proceedings by his employer. He had been charged with unauthorized absence from service for close to a year in the disciplinary proceeding. He contended that he was entitled to voluntary retirement under the bank's voluntary retirement scheme but his application was not accepted.

The petitioner appealed the decision of the disciplinary authority in a special civil suit in Pune. His appeal failed and he filed a second appeal before the District Court Pune. His second appeal was also dismissed on the ground that no substantial question of law arose in the case. He filed a First Review petition in the same court which was dismissed on the ground that there was no new or important matter or evidence, neither was any error made by the courts. The petitioner then filed a second review petition before the High Court.

The court held that Order 47, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure specifically bars second review, hence this petition cannot be entertained. "The petitioner herein had sought second review on the premise that this Court is sitting in an appeal over its first review", the court stated.

The petitioner had refused to engage a counsel stating he can argue better than any advocate.

The petitioner had also filed Writ Petition before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in 2019 which was dismissed. "This is a classic example of abuse of process of Court as well as law, wherein, the petitioner has left no stone unturned to abuse the process not only by preferring second review which is not tenable in law, but also by filing multiple proceedings before different Courts", the court stated.

Petitioner had filed a Writ Petition in 1997 challenging the departmental inquiry which he withdrew in 2001. He instituted 10 Criminal Writ Petitions and several Civil Writ Petitions from the year 2004 to 2014, along with miscellaneous applications.

He also filed special leave petition as well as writ petition before the Supreme Court both of which were dismissed. "The petitioner had suppressed pendency of Writ Petition in the Supreme Court before this Court and, therefore, he can be said to be guilty of suppressing of material facts, which also amounts to abuse of process of Court as well as of law", the court stated.

The court ordered that the petitioner deposit the penalty within three weeks. The registry of the court was directed to transmit the amount to The Bombay Mothers and Children Welfare Society.

"Such tendencies need to be nipped in the bud by imposing exemplary costs. Such elements cannot be permitted to take the system for a ride by filing unmerited multiple proceedings and to drag the proceedings endlessly", the court held.

Case no. : RPS/3/2022

Case Title :  Anand Prabhakar Joshi v. Bank of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 258 

Coram : Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan