In a stern rebuke against unnecessary legal proceedings, the Supreme Court on Thursday imposed a fine of Rs 1.2 lakh on an appellant, B Govardhan, for what it termed a ‘legal misadventure’. This decision comes after the apex court found that the continuation of the legal dispute consumed substantial judicial time of the Madras High Court, time which could have been utilized to address other pressing legal matters.
The dispute, originating from a loan agreement made in 1995 involving Govardhan and a couple engaged in the building materials business, escalated over the years, revolving around the mortgage of properties as security for a Rs 10 lakh loan. After varied interpretations in the lower courts, the matter reached the Supreme Court following a division bench of the Madras High Court’s verdict, which Govardhan contested.
Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, presiding over the appeal, criticized the needless prolongation of the litigation by Govardhan. Justice Amanullah, who authored the bench’s judgment, remarked on the wasteful use of the High Court’s time, which detracted from its ability to serve the vast needs of justice for the public.
The apex court’s judgment also specified the allocation of the imposed costs: Rs 40,000 will contribute to juvenile welfare, another Rs 40,000 will support the welfare of advocates’ clerks, and the remaining Rs 40,000 will bolster legal aid services, with the distribution of these funds to be overseen by the Madras High Court’s acting chief justice and the High Court Legal Services Committee, respectively.
The court further ordered that the sum be deposited within six weeks and mandated that proof of deposit be submitted to the registry of the Supreme Court. Failure to comply with these directives will result in the matter being brought back before the court.
In addition to resolving the mortgage dispute by reinstating the original verdict of a single-judge bench of the High Court, the Supreme Court adjusted the interest rate on the loan from 36 percent per annum to a more equitable 12 percent, citing justice considerations.
