Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the order, after also taking note that “there is an efficacious alternative remedy for the petitioner and the governing law recognises the same.” “Far too often Courts are burdened with dishonest litigants trying to dodge the debts due to banks and financial institutions by pleading to the non-existent mercy jurisdiction of the Writ Court. It is high time that such frivolous litigations are brought to an end and the dishonest debtors appropriately rewarded,” the order said.
Courts burdened with dishonest litigants dodging debts by resorting to non-existent, mercy jurisdiction of writ courts: Madras High Court
Far too often, courts are burdened with dishonest litigants trying to dodge debts by resorting to non-existent, mercy jurisdiction of writ courts, the Madras High Court remarked recently while imposing costs of Rs 1 lakh on one such frivolous petitioner (P Sudhakar v The Union Secretary, Ministry of Finance and ors).
A Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the order, after also taking note that “there is an efficacious alternative remedy for the petitioner and the governing law recognises the same.”
“Far too often Courts are burdened with dishonest litigants trying to dodge the debts due to banks and financial institutions by pleading to the non-existent mercy jurisdiction of the Writ Court. It is high time that such frivolous litigations are brought to an end and the dishonest debtors appropriately rewarded,” the order said.
In this case, the petitioner had sought directions from the Court to a bank so that they may consider his representation for an amicable settlement in a matter concerning repayment of a loan.
“This is another of those frivolous matters in which the Writ Court has been approached for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the bank, even though it is a nationalised bank, to resolve its commercial dispute with its constituent in a particular manner. It is too late in the day to remind the petitioner that such authority does not vest in the Writ Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution,” the Bench said.
The Court proceeded to dismiss the petition with the observation that the petitioner may pursue his grievance before the appropriate forum. In doing so, the Court also directed the petition to pay Rs. 1 lakh as costs to the respondent bank.
[Read Order]
Related Stories
Not worth paper it is printed on: Madras High Court slams Arbitration Court for confirming unreasoned arbitral award
State incorporated various caste-based corporations to secure votes: Senior Advocate Ravivarma Kumar to Karnataka High Court
Not granting relief will be abdication of duty: Bombay High Court in Varavara Rao’s judgment
Delhi High Court urges Bar Council of Delhi to take a call on whether enrollment process should be completely online
