Mumbai: To ensure that those who approach the court in commercial disputes “understand that the court does not play, and litigation is not a hobby,” The recent Bombay Court recently directed private companies to pay Rs 25 Lakh to the party looking for orders.
“This is definitely an annoying and naughty process that does not need to waste the court time,” said Justice Gautam Patel on September 21, directs La Fin Financial Services Pvt Ltd to pay the amount within two weeks to Exchange Multi Commodity India Ltd.
Pay will bring interest in nine percent in the amount, he directs.
The financial services company has submitted a special leave petition (SLP) to the orders of the High Court before the Supreme Court.
The Apex court is scheduled to hear it on Friday.
The Bombay High Court hears the temporary application submitted by La fins who have searched for orders for multi-commodity exchanges India Ltd.
or MCX on the grounds that the exchange issued a 120 day deadline to submit a written statement in response to a commercial suits.
“It has institutionalized under ‘commercial court law’.
HC noted that a lawsuit against MCX was originally submitted as a ‘regular setting’, which did not have a time limit , “HC said, added,” There was an initial mistake in the Plaintiff’s section in straightening a lawsuit regularly.
“The commercial court law does not apply to regular settings.
The High Court, when informed by an advisor that he did not have instructions to attract applications , said, “The cruelty of his client is amazing and now demands that a very strong signal be sent to the Plaintiff like this.” HC noted that part 35 of the commercial court acted to provide a sequence of costs when a party “wasted the time of the court” and submitted an annoying process.
“The amount of costs cannot be trivial.
Changed part 35 clearly intends the cost of ordering costs to be used as a deterrent to prevent parties from making such reckless applications, holding HC, the reason that “has no meaning to order a trivial amount.” “The initial delay was only caused by the Plaintiff (the party who filed a lawsuit).
Cannot use this.
There is no court that will allow injustice caused, especially when the party looking for the order itself is found by default,” said Justice Patel, rejected the temporary application.
Judge Patel clarified that the law “not only intended to put the defendant below the strict time limit to enter the defense,” added, “it was intended to ensure that commercial suits were removed quickly.” “It is impossible that the defendant disadvantaged by the limitations of the law and the Plaintiff did not have an obligation to act immediately and in a reasonable time.
The commercial court acted no more AIDS defendant dilated than those who helped the Plaintiff procrastinate,” said a high court order, adding a temporary petition “Waste time is very rare.
This is trying to paper on the handling of the Plaintiff’s fat from the archiving.”