Sumedh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.759 OF 2023

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.15317 OF 2023

Qureshi Iqbal A Kadar ... Appellant

V/s.

Pyramid Developers & Ors. ... Respondents

_______________________

Mr. Abhishek L. Tripathi a/w. Adv. Bharat Tiwari for the

Appellant.

_______________________

CORAM : KAMAL KHATA, J.

DATED : 17TH DECEMBER 2025.

P.C. :

1. The conduct of the Advocate for the Appellant demonstrates

a clear disregard for the Orders of this Court.

2. Despite a specific SOP requiring filing of consolidated list of dates and events, written submission and supporting case law to streamline hearings and save judicial time, and despite having taken time to do so, the Advocate has failed to comply with the

said requirement since 6^th October 2025.

3. The Advocate argues that the submissions were delayed only

by two weeks.

4. This submission is wholly untenable. Upon perusal of the

record, it is observed that on 6^th October 2025 the Appellant was granted two weeks’ time to comply with the SOP. The said period expired on 20^th October 2025. The Advocate neither written submissions within the stipulated period nor sought any extension of time from the Court, either before the expiry of the period or thereafter, until the matter was listed on 17^th November 2025. On 17^th November 2025 an extension of two weeks was sought and granted, although by then six weeks had already elapsed. Even today, that is four weeks thereafter (ten weeks since the order of 6^th October 2025), there is no compliance with the Order, and yet an extension is sought.

5. Upon a perusal of the record, it is further evident that when the Advocate for the Appellant was confronted with imposition of costs for non-compliance with the orders of this Court, the Advocate insisted on arguing the matter without complying with the said requirement. He gave an impression by his arguments, that the SOP was unnecessary and had been thrust upon the Advocates. Such arguments and conduct of the Advocate, to say the least, is unacceptable especially having taken considerable time. The SOP was introduced to curtail lengthy and unchartered arguments advanced by Advocates. To argue that the SOP is unnecessary is wholly unwarranted. Even without considering the merits of the matter, considerable judicial time is expended on such frivolous submissions. Given the present backlog of cases, such arguments are entirely unjustified.

6. It is further observed that the Advocate for the Appellant made no effort whatsoever to seek an extension from the Court for such continued non-compliance. This conduct clearly amounts to taking the Court for granted.

7. The Advocate then argues that the Appellant is unable to pay costs as the matter pertains to an SRA project. This submission too is wholly misconceived. The default is that of the Advocate and not the litigant.

8. Faced with this view of the Court he offered to pay ₹5,000/-, which the Court declined as such an amount is not a deterrent in the present day and age, particularly in the City of Mumbai where Advocates charge several thousand or even lakhs as fees for each appearance.

9. In view of the aforesaid conduct and attitude of the Advocate and for continued non-compliance with the Orders of this Court, and with a view to act as a deterrent against this pernicious practice of disobeying judicial directions, the Advocate for the Appellant shall pay costs of ₹50,000/- to the High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund, at Mumbai, within a period of one week from today.

10. The Bank Account details are as follows:

11. Let the written submissions be filed in the Registry on or before 24th December 2025 subject to payment of costs by the Appellant.

12. The consequence of failure to pay the costs shall be considered by the Court on the next date.

13. List the matter on 8th January 2026 under the caption 'for compliance’.

(KAMAL KHATA, J.)