6 days ago
Delhi court imposes cost on man for filing frivolous petition
New Delhi: Imposing a Rs 10,000 cost on a man for filing a frivolous petition, a Delhi court underscored the need to prevent wealthy litigants from filing unnecessary cases that hamper the justice system.
The court of additional sessions judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler, in its June 9 order, agreed with the magistrate court's decision and observed that the plea appeared as an effort not only to put pressure on the magisterial court but also on CGST officers.
"I must express this court's deep concern and disappointment regarding the revisionist's insidious and cavalier approach in filing this frivolous petition. Liberal access to justice should not be misconstrued as an opportunity to create chaos and indiscipline; such petitions should be met with substantial penalties," the judge said.
The court was hearing the revision petition of one Kapil Arora against an April 2025 magistrate court order, which dismissed his plea for compensation for curtailing his liberty. Arora was arrested by Central Goods and Services Tax officials in Oct 2024 for allegedly evading payment of GST. He alleged that the CGST officials conducted an unauthorised search and had no evidence to prove that he made Rs 1,284 crore in sales between 2018 and 2024 while evading Rs 200 crore in GST or that Rs 2.18 crore recovered from his house and shop were not linked with GST.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Giao dịch vàng CFDs với sàn môi giới tin cậy
IC Markets
Tìm hiểu thêm
Undo
You Can Also Check:
Delhi AQI
|
Weather in Delhi
|
Bank Holidays in Delhi
|
Public Holidays in Delhi
The court observed that litigants abusing court procedures ought to face necessary repercussions. "It is important to prevent wealthy litigants from pursuing unnecessary litigation, as these cases can slow down the justice system and delay trials for other litigants. Courts must ensure that the legal system is not misused to obstruct or delay justice," the judge said.
The court found no fault with the magistrate when it observed that the accused's address and surety had to be verified, as the alleged crime was serious.
Arora moved to a magisterial court, which dismissed his bail plea. Arora then challenged the order rejecting his bail before a sessions court, which granted him bail but imposed several conditions on Nov 27.
However, in order to satisfy bail conditions before the magistrate—as a part of the bail procedure in this case—his release was kept in abeyance till the next day until the sureties furnished by him were verified. The verification report was received by the magistrate on Nov 28, but Arora could not be released until Nov 29 due to a clerical error. The magistrate found no intentional error on the part of the court staff, and Arora was released following a warning to a court staffer.
