Bombay High Court imposes fine of Rs. 4,50,000/- on Ram Nagar Trust for delay in compliance
Justice
Gautam Patel recently passed an order directing ‘Ram Nagar Trust’ to pay Rs.
1,000/- per day for the 450 days delay (Rs. 4,50,000 in aggregate) to the
defendant in the suit filed by the trust in 2009.
Gautam Patel recently passed an order directing ‘Ram Nagar Trust’ to pay Rs.
1,000/- per day for the 450 days delay (Rs. 4,50,000 in aggregate) to the
defendant in the suit filed by the trust in 2009.
The
court noted that in September 2016, the high court had framed issues in the
suit and directed both the plaintiff (trust) and the defendants to submit
before the registry an affidavit of documents they would be relying on. Last
week when the suit came up before Justice Patel, the trust’s lawyer sought a
week’s time to submit the same. This was opposed by the defendants who claimed
that time and again adjournments were being sought by the plaintiff trust. Agreeing
to this, Justice Patel in his order said, “No more adjournments. No more ‘tareek pe tareek’. Enough is
enough“.
court noted that in September 2016, the high court had framed issues in the
suit and directed both the plaintiff (trust) and the defendants to submit
before the registry an affidavit of documents they would be relying on. Last
week when the suit came up before Justice Patel, the trust’s lawyer sought a
week’s time to submit the same. This was opposed by the defendants who claimed
that time and again adjournments were being sought by the plaintiff trust. Agreeing
to this, Justice Patel in his order said, “No more adjournments. No more ‘tareek pe tareek’. Enough is
enough“.
“That a court will endlessly grant
adjournments is not something that parties or advocates can take for granted.
Nor should they assume that there will be no consequences to continued defaults
and unexplained delay,” Justice Patel said.
adjournments is not something that parties or advocates can take for granted.
Nor should they assume that there will be no consequences to continued defaults
and unexplained delay,” Justice Patel said.
The
court added that fixing random figures like Rs 5,000 or Rs 25,000 was counterproductive
as parties think such costs are negligible. “The costs must be real. They must be sufficient to convey the message
that non-compliance with our orders brings consequences; that these
consequences are inevitable and unavoidable; and the consequences are not some
piffling trifle,” Justice Patel said.
court added that fixing random figures like Rs 5,000 or Rs 25,000 was counterproductive
as parties think such costs are negligible. “The costs must be real. They must be sufficient to convey the message
that non-compliance with our orders brings consequences; that these
consequences are inevitable and unavoidable; and the consequences are not some
piffling trifle,” Justice Patel said.
He
refused to accept the contention of the plaintiff’s lawyer that it was a charitable
trust and that the suit pertained to land for educational purposes. “This is even more shocking. That a trust
should be so utterly negligent about its own case is reason enough to warrant
immediate action against the trustees and have every one of them removed. A
public trust has a higher duty of care, not a lower one,” the court
said.
refused to accept the contention of the plaintiff’s lawyer that it was a charitable
trust and that the suit pertained to land for educational purposes. “This is even more shocking. That a trust
should be so utterly negligent about its own case is reason enough to warrant
immediate action against the trustees and have every one of them removed. A
public trust has a higher duty of care, not a lower one,” the court
said.
“We will make exceptions for the poor, the
illiterate, the helpless. They will receive our protection. But, educated
trustees charged with a solemn fiduciary duty will not get a free pass only
because they claim to espouse some worthy cause,” Justice Patel noted.
illiterate, the helpless. They will receive our protection. But, educated
trustees charged with a solemn fiduciary duty will not get a free pass only
because they claim to espouse some worthy cause,” Justice Patel noted.