Court time valuable, unfortunate that dishonest litigants hijack system: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court recently observed that the Court's time is valuable and that its dockets were ever flowing, yet some dishonest and unscrupulous litigants find ways to hijack the system [BMG Gulf FZC vs Quippo Oil & Gas Infrastructure Limited]..Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur made the observation while pulling up a Dubai-based company for filing an application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act even though the High Court lacked the jurisdiction to deal with the matter.While criticising the company for wasting the court's time, Justice Kapur said,"Court time is a valuable national resource. Our dockets are ever flowing. In a system, where the civil libertarian, pension seeker, motor vehicle accident claimant, octogenarian and undertrial are languishing before Courts, it is unfortunate how unscrupulous and dishonest litigants and their advisors manage not only to highjack the system but strangely find their matters on the top of any Roster.".While the Dubai company apologised for having approached the wrong forum, the Court criticised it for having intentionally and deliberately filed the plea."The mistake (in filing the instant plea) is so obvious that the same cannot be described as accidental or bonafide but only as deliberate, intentional and orchestrated for some sinister purpose. Punitive costs were for the asking. However, in view of the unconditional apology expressed by all the lawyers who had appeared in this matter and on the touchstone of the quality of mercy, discretion is exercised by simply dismissing on the ground of maintainability with a caution to each of the Advocates who had appeared in this proceeding not to commit any such act in future," the judge said in the May 3 order..The Court added that while it may be possible that the plea was filed in a collusive manner, it is not going into such a possibility for the present. "I choose not to dilate on whether the proceeding between the parties is collusive or not ... This is also not the stage for a discourse on the role of Advocates in the administration of justice. It is for members of the Bar to introspect and take necessary steps and spare the Courts of the unpleasant duty," the judge cautioned..By way of background, the matter concerned a dispute between a Kolkata-based company and a Dubai-based company. The Dubai-based company eventually approached the High Court seeking the appointment of an arbitrator. On May 3, the High Court noted that the dispute between the parties was an international commercial arbitration and that only the Chief Justice of India or his delegate has the power to appoint an arbitrator in such a case. Any such application before the High Court is misconceived and not maintainable, the Court held.After the Court pointed out this aspect, the petitioner-company's lawyers unconditionally and unequivocally admitted that the High Court lacked the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Each of the advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioner signed an unconditional apology for filing this application. Even the senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-company confessed that there has been an inadvertent and bonafide error.Taking a dim view of the lapse, the Court said,"The more sagacious judicial pronouncements instruct that a judgment should not betray any agitation on the part of the Judge and should not be intemperate in its expression. But public interest demands at times that a cheat be described as such for him and others that he has cheated to be aware that there is appropriate recognition on the basis of the character of a person's conduct. Plain-speaking must sometimes be used if only to bolster the image of the institution and to instil confidence in it."With these observations, the Court dismissed the plea as it was not tenable..Advocates Rishav Banerjee, AK Awasthi, S Gole and P Shaha appeared for the petitioner. Senior advocate Abhrajit Mitra along with advocates Rishad Medora and A Chakraborty represented the respondent..[Read Order]