1 week ago
Supreme Court Ends 11-Year Fight, Fines Both Parties ₹5 Lakh
The Supreme Court finished a legal fight that had lasted 11 years.
The case involved two sides, called the appellant and the respondent.
Judges said both sides had contributed to making the dispute longer.
They also said important facts may have been left out or exaggerated.
Because of this conduct, each side must pay ₹5 lakh.
The judges said court time should be available for people with genuine problems.
They explained that a court is not a place for courtroom drama or personal revenge.
Neither side was considered to have behaved honorably in the case.
The Supreme Court ended an 11-year legal dispute between an appellant and a respondent.
The court imposed costs of ₹5 lakh on each party for their conduct.
Judges said both sides had used suppression of facts, embellishments and afterthoughts in pursuing their claims.
The bench said the litigation consumed time that could have helped other litigants with genuine grievances.
The court warned that judicial proceedings cannot be used to settle personal scores or gain advantage from a self-created controversy.
- Who
- The appellant, the respondent and the Supreme Court bench.
- What
- The court ended the dispute and imposed ₹5 lakh in costs on each party.
- Where
- Before the Supreme Court.
- When
- After the dispute had continued for 11 years.
- Why
- The court strongly disapproved of both parties' conduct, including alleged suppression of facts, embellishment and afterthought.
Key facts
- Case duration
- 11 years
- Penalty
- ₹5 lakh imposed on each party
- Parties
- An appellant and a respondent
- Other institutions involved
- The Bar Council, a High Court and the Supreme Court
- Court's criticism
- Both parties allegedly relied on suppression of facts, embellishments and afterthoughts
- Court's concern
- The litigation used judicial time that could have served other litigants
Quotes
Supreme Court bench
The Supreme Court bench hearing the dispute
“Every fact of consequence has had to be prised out of a record in which suppression, embellishment and afterthought are the common currency of both sides. The machinery of justice is not a facility placed at the disposal of parties to settle scores, to salvage reputations they have themselves imperilled, or to extract advantage from a controversy of their own making.”
businesstoday.in
“Each of these parties has come to us complaining of a wrong, and each has been the author of a good part of it. Between them, they have occupied the time of the Bar Council, an HC and this court for 11 years.”
businesstoday.in
Sources
Related news
Supreme Court Penalizes ‘Luxury Litigation’ for Delaying Genuine Cases
Supreme Court Condemns Parties’ 11-Year Legal Dispute
Ex-Supreme Court judge challenges Rajasthan HC order over 'lethargic' tribunal
Judge Awards Blake Lively $407,000 in Baldoni Case
NCLT Fines SpiceJet, Aviator ML Over Late Settlement Disclosure
Delhi High Court Orders Madhya Pradesh to Pay Advocate Dues
Shinde Sena Challenges Shiv Sena’s 2018 Power Shift
Supreme Court Questions BCI Chairman’s Proposed Five-Year Tenure
BJP MPs Seek National Commission for General Category Interests
PUCL Urges CJI Action Over Rajasthan High Court Allegations
Supreme Court Questions IPS Deputation for CAPF Leadership Positions
