Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital Management - Appellant
Versus
Preeti & Anr. - Respondents
CM(M) 534 of 2023 & CM APPL. 15803 of 2023
Decided On : 29-11-2023
Costs - Industrial Tribunal - The court upheld the imposition of costs on the petitioner for seeking adjournment and for delay in filing the written statement, citing relevant provisions of Order XVII, Rule 1(2)(c) and the fact that the proceedings remained stalled for four years. The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The Industrial Tribunal allowed the petitioner to file a written statement after recalling an earlier order and imposed costs for delay. The petitioner, a government-funded hospital, sought waiver of the costs, which was rejected by the Trial Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the imposition of costs for seeking adjournment and for delay in filing the written statement was justified and within the Trial Court's jurisdiction. The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was deemed unwarranted and dismissed.
Issues: Imposition of costs for seeking adjournment and delay in filing the written statement, and the petitioner's petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The imposition of costs was upheld based on the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 1(2)(c) and the fact that the proceedings remained stalled for four years. The Court deemed the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India unwarranted.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India impugns the order dated 05.01.2023 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II, Rouse Avenue, District Court, New Delhi in ID No.30/2018, titled as Preeti vs. Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital & Anr. (`Industrial Tribunal').
1.1. The Petitioner is the original respondent and Respondents are the original petitioners before the Industrial Tribunal.
1.2. The Industrial Tribunal vide impugned order dated 05.01.2023 allowed an application filed by the Petitioner herein seeking recall of the order dated 10.01.2020, whereby the right of the Petitioner to file a written statement was closed. The Trial Court while recalling the order and after considering the explanation offered by the Petitioner herein for its delay, imposed costs of Rs. 5,000/- upon the petitioner herein.
1.3. The Trial Court by a separate order imposed costs on the Petitioner on 16.11.2022 for non-appearance of its counsel. The Petitioner herein had also moved a second application for seeking waiver of the costs imposed on the said date (16.11.2022). The Trial Court by the impugned order dated 05.01.2023 had also rejected the second application.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner herein is a government funded hospital and therefore, the imposition of costs is onerous.
3. This Court has considered the submissions of the counsel for the Petitioner and perused the record.
Impugned order dated 05.01.2023 refusing to waive cost imposed on 16.11.2022
4. The Trial Court vide order dated 16.11.2022 noted that an adjournment was sought on the ground that the counsel for the Petitioner was engaged in a matter before the High Court. The Trial Court in the interest of justice, adjourned the matter, however, it imposed costs of Rs. 5,000/- on the Petitioner for seeking an adjournment.
4.1. In the opinion of this Court, the imposition of costs on 16.11.2022 was justified more specifically in view of the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 1(2)(c) which reads as under:
"1. Court may grant time and adjourn hearing. - [(1) The court may, if sufficient cause is shown, ...
(2) Costs of adjournment. - In every such case the Court shall fix a day for the further hearing of the suit, and 2 [shall make such orders as to costs occasioned by the adjournment or such higher costs as the court deems fit:]
4.2. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court imposing costs on 16.11.2022 and the order of the Trial Court dated 05.01.2023 dismissing the application seeking waiver of costs does not suffer from any infirmity.
xxx xxx xxx
(c) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment, ..."
(Emphasis Supplied)
Impugned order dated 05.01.2023 imposing costs while condoning delay in filing the written statement and recalling order dated 10.01.2022
5. The Petitioner herein was served on 25.02.2019. However, the Petitioner failed to file its written statement to the statement of claim petition for one (1) year till 10.01.2020.
5.1. In these circumstances, the Industrial Tribunal closed the right of the Petitioner to file the written statement vide order dated 10.01.2020. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 05.01.2023 the Industrial Tribunal recalled the order dated 10.01.2020 and permitted the Petitioner herein to file a written statement.
5.2. The Trial Court observed that no sufficient ground had been furnished by the Petitioner in explaining its delay for non-filing of its written statement between 10.01.2020 and 16.11.2022, however, the Trial Court observed that since the matter is at the initial stage and recording of evidence has not yet started, therefore, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- the application for written statement to be taken on record was allowed.
6. It is evident from the record that the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal remained stalled between 25.02.2019 and 05.0
The Court upheld the Trial Court's jurisdiction to impose costs for seeking adjournment and for delay in filing the written statement, and deemed the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of....
The court affirmed the principle that discretionary orders regarding costs by lower courts should not be interfered with unless shown to be excessive or unjust.
The court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory, allowing for discretion in permitting late defenses under mitigating circumstances, without the ability to substitute the lower court's deci....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that disputes should be resolved on merits rather than technicalities, and in deserving cases, delay in filing pleadings can be condoned subject....
A petitioner cannot file a petition after accepting costs paid by the respondent without disclosing this fact, and the Trial Court's exercise of discretion in condoning the delay in filing the applic....
Unconscionable laches can bar relief in petitions under Article 227; courts will not interfere unless there are grave abuses or derelictions.
The Court emphasized the importance of compliance with court orders and the interest of justice in granting opportunities to present evidence.
Judicial discretion under Article 227 must be exercised sparingly, reaffirming that costs imposed by lower courts for adjournments can be upheld if justified by the conduct of the parties.
An arbitrator's costs can be challenged if deemed excessive, particularly when justified reasons for adjournments are presented.
Closure of the right to file a written statement by the trial court can be revisited if the parties agree, with costs imposed ensuring fairness in the proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
