In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India delivered a judgement in a case involving TATA Motors Finance Ltd and a petitioner, addressing the issue of frivolous litigation. The court’s decision sets a strong precedent for deterring misuse of the legal system and emphasizes the importance of prioritizing genuine causes. Find out more about this critical case and the implications it carries for the justice system.
Facts
- Petitioner had prayed for quashing and setting aside Notice with Ref. No.5004435902 issued by TATA Motors Finance Ltd
- Petitioner requested a direction to immediately release and handover the custody of the vehicle TATA Tempo RTO registration No.PB-03-BK-6029
- Impugned FIR was filed due to the vehicle carrying liquor without a permit
- Petitioner previously filed Special Criminal Application No.13803/2023 which resulted in releasing the vehicle
- Petitioner was an accused in FIR C.R.No.11214023230749 of 2023 under various sections of the Gujarat Prohibition Act
Arguments
- The petitioner’s vehicle has been released by the coordinate Bench of the Court.
- The finance company issued a notice for non-payment of Rs.22,84,301/- and threatened to sell the vehicle in auction.
- The petitioner had already paid an amount as per the court’s conditions for release of the vehicle.
- The notice by the finance company is seen as a violation of the court’s orders which included conditions such as providing a solvent surety, filing an undertaking, producing the vehicle as directed by the court, and confiscation in case of subsequent offences.
- The petitioner’s counsel requested to quash and set aside the notice issued by the finance company.
- The muddamal vehicle was hypothecated to respondent No.2 Finance Company due to the petitioner’s failure to make payments.
- The finance company referred the dispute to the learned Arbitrator.
- The arbitration proceedings took place and a notice was issued prior to the arbitration decision on 27.12.2023.
- The Arbitrator’s order on 27.12.2023 directed the recovery of the amount by selling the vehicle in auction.
- Respondent No.2’s counsel opposed the petition, claiming the petitioner made false statements and hadn’t paid any amount.
Analysis
- The court deprecates the practice of filing repeated applications to prolong inevitable outcomes and leave the party seeking justice in a lurch.
- The duty of all courts is to ensure that the legal system is not exploited for unjust delays or strategic advantages.
- Courts must prioritize resolving genuine causes and addressing the concerns of those in need of justice.
- Imposing exemplary costs is necessary to deter frivolous litigation and ensure access to courts for those with genuine grievances.
- The petitioner’s attempt to thwart the legal recovery proceedings of the finance company by approaching the court directly is deemed as an abuse of process and is firmly dealt with by imposing costs.
- Frivolous and groundless filings are a serious menace to the administration of justice
- Such filings consume time and clog the infrastructure of the courts
- Any attempt by a litigant to abuse the legal process must be viewed with disfavour
- Exemplary costs are necessary to deter litigants from filing frivolous cases
- Courts are choked with litigation and resources are being wasted on worthless causes
- Litigants should not have a vested interest in delaying the justice process
- The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation
- Institutional measures are needed to penalize such behavior and ensure access to courts for genuine grievances
- Access to justice does not mean chaos and indiscipline, frivolous litigants should face consequences
- In the process of litigation, innocent sufferers exist on the other side of irresponsible claims.
- These innocent individuals experience long periods of nervousness and restlessness during pending litigation, despite being faultless.
- The present petition is dismissed in limine.
Decision
- Petitioner’s conduct, without any cause, in filing the present litigation and wasting the court’s time is noted.
- Exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/- imposed on the petitioner.
- Rs.5,000/- to be paid to Tata Motors Finance Ltd. and Rs.5,000/- to be paid to Gujarat State Legal Services Authority within two weeks.
Case Title: RAKESH KISHNA RAM BABAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCR.A/3178/2024
