Supreme Court Deprecates "Luxury Litigation"; Imposes Cost Of Rs 2 Lakhs On Petitioner

A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Hima Kohli, though initially inclined to impose a cost of 18 lakhs, decided to impose a cost of 2 lakhs while dismissing the petition.

"We are of the view that the present proceedings are a luxury litigation by warring groups to grab the control over the management of the Trust. We deprecate this practice of filing such luxury litigation", the bench observed

Later, the bench changed the order to a cost of 2 lakhs, with one lakh each to be deposited with the Supreme Court Bar Association and Supreme Court Advocates On Record Association.

"It is further to be noted that the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. are summary in nature and they do not decide as to who is entitled to the rights. They only decide the question as to who was in possession on the date of filing of the application or two months prior of making such an application.

It is more than a well settled principle of law that when a law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner alone or not at all. The learned Sessions Judge and the learned High Court following the said principle have decided the matter before them", the bench said in the order.

The court was considering a special leave petition filed against Bombay High Court's order dismissing challenge to Session Judge's order whereby it set aside an order passed by the Magistrate under Section 145 of the CrPC holding the petitioner and his group to be in control and management of the educational institution 'The Jalgaon Jilha Vidya Prasarak Maratha Samaj Ltd'

When the matter was called, the bench told petitioner's counsel that it finds no merits in this petition, but he insisted on arguing. The bench also warned that in event he wants to proceed further, the bench won't stop him but that will be subject to exemplary cost.

"We warned you when orders are well reasoned we don't expect counsels to unnecessary waste their time in courts." the bench told the petitioner counsel.

Case Title: Nilesh v Mahesh