'Advocates are expected to explain to their clients what is and isn't permissible', HC fines Litigant who failed to follow Coronavirus Notice instruction

18 Mar 2020

Categories: Latest News

The Coronavirus spread is a pandemic and the Court is taking it as seriously as the scale is measured by the Government.

The Bombay High Court for that matter has restricted its functioning, issued notices to prevent overcrowing in the premises. Though the message is loud and clear from the administrative branch of the Courts, it's not being heard out in that manner it seem.

As a result of this, the Court was in one way compelled to impose a cost of ₹15,000 on a litigant for seeking ad-interim relief and getting their matter listed in a regular contempt motion without any urgency.

The Court was of the opinion that simply imposing cost "was not enough" as its message pertaining to precautions of the pandemic was very clear in the notification dated March 14. Court had asked the registry to list the matter on June 26, 2020, and held that no opportunity will be given to the plaintiff to mention the matter for priority listing.

Justice Patel was simply displeased with the matter being registered for hearting. He observed on the very outset:

"I have already issued a notice saying that it is not necessary to mention matters for circulation and, for the convenience of the Bar and to save time, parties are allowed to put in praceipes for matters that are truly urgent and require ad-interim reliefs. The notice clearly says that if no urgency is found costs may be imposed."

"There are now two possible solutions. The first is to completely withdraw the facility extended to the Bar completely and instead to require everybody to consume the better part of an hour or more mentioning matters making out a ground for urgency before circulation. Undoubtedly, several Advocates and parties will be inconvenienced, but it is the Advocates in this matter who will have to explain themselves to their colleagues because they alone bear that responsibility. The other alternative is to do what was said in the notice and to impose costs. That is preferable because others at least will not be inconvenienced."

The Court was informed by the Plaintiff's Advocate that the Client was advised not to get it listed for now yet he insisted.

The Bench to this reverted with dismay :

"That is no answer. It is not unreasonable to expect Advocates to inform their clients of what is and is not possible or permissible, and not to act on their every wish"

In view of the above, it thus imposed a cost of ₹15,000 payable to St.Jude India ChildCare Centres in Mumbai.

The order was passed by Justice J S Patel on 16-03-2020.

Read Order Here:

Tags : Bombay High court Coronavirus Unscrupulous litigants fine Client

Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App