2022 Supreme(SC) 454
M. R. SHAH, B. V. NAGARATHNA
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited – Appellant
Versus
Narendra Jayantilal Trivedi – Respondent
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Himanshu Bhushan, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Santosh Krishnan, Malak Manish Bhatt, Advocates
Judgement Key Points
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
- Case Details: The case is Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs. Narendra Jayantilal Trivedi & Anr., decided by the Supreme Court of India on 13-05-2022, involving Civil Appeal No. 4026 of 2022 and Civil Appeal No. 4027 of 2022. (!)
- Core Principle: Proceedings before the Court are not for litigants to take a chance; such conduct is considered an abuse of the court process and is speculative. [judgement_subject]
- Reprehensible Conduct: The Court found the respondent's conduct reprehensible for enjoying the fruits of interim orders for approximately four years, initiating multiple proceedings to delay recovery, inviting an order on merits which was against them, and then withdrawing the appeal to nullify strong adverse observations made by the Single Judge. [judgement_act_referred]
- Abuse of Process: Allowing a litigant to enjoy litigation fruits for years, invite a decision against them, and then withdraw the appeal to ignore those observations amounts to taking a chance before the court and is an abuse of the process. (!) (!)
- Single Judge's Observations: The Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition with exemplary costs (Rs. 1,00,000/-) and made strong observations that the respondent initiated proceedings solely to stall recovery and had not paid a single rupee for nearly 21 years despite a 2000 decree. (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Division Bench Error: The Division Bench of the High Court erred by granting an ex-parte ad-interim stay on dispossession and staying the cost order, then permitting the withdrawal of the Letters Patent Appeal while simultaneously issuing an order that the appropriate forum must ignore the Single Judge's observations and cost order. (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Quashing of Order: The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the Division Bench's order dated 04.03.2022 (and the interim order dated 25.01.2022) insofar as it extended the stay, reduced the cost, and instructed the lower forum to ignore the Single Judge's observations. (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Vacating Interim Relief: The ex-parte interim order granted in the Letters Patent Appeal was vacated. (!)
- Costs: The Civil Appeals were allowed/disposed of with costs quantified at Rs. 1,00,000/- to be deposited by the respondent with the Gujarat High Court Legal Services Committee. (!)
JUDGMENT :
M. R. Shah, J.
Leave granted.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned order dated 25.01.2022 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad and subsequent order dated 04.03.2022, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 75/2022, the original respondent – Bank has preferred the present appeals.
2. The facts leading to the present appeals are as under:
2.1 A loan facility of Rs. 29,50,000/- was earlier extended by State Bank of India and later assigned to the appellant – Bank to a proprietorship firm of respondent No. 1 herein i.e., M/s Aromatics Intermediates and Chemicals. As a security for the said loan facility, property belonging to respondent No. 1 was mortgaged in favour of State Bank of India. In view of default by respondent No. 1 in making payments of the outstanding amounts, the bank filed a civil suit in the year 1986 for recovery of its dues and enforcement of securities. Upon enactment of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1993), the suit was transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), which was numbered as Transfer Application No. 95/1995. The DRT vide order da
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
