Frivolous pleas must be treated with iron hands: Bombay HC imposes Rs 50 lakhs as costs

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court recently imposed Rs. 50 lakh fine on Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals Pvt Ltd, a fertilizer company for filing frivolous pleas with an ulterior motive of commercial gain and abuse of Court process..The Division Bench of Justices Ravi K Deshpande and Milind N Jadhav passed an order to this effect, while reiterating such vexatious litigation ought to be curbed with iron hands. .... the Court has to be intolerant to such situation and the practice of filing such frivolous and vexatious litigation, without having any genuine interest and lacking in all bona fides. It needs to be curbed and treated with iron hands, so as to deter the litigants from taking the Court for a ride by misusing the process.Bombay High Court.The Court passed the order on two pleas seeking to restrain marketing and commercial use of a Soil Testing Fertiliser Recommendations (STFR) meter. In its writ plea, Nagarjuna Agro had sought to blacklist licenses granted in respect of the STFR meter, citing misrepresentation, cheating and fraud on the part of Indian Council for Agriculture Research (ICAR) and Indian Agriculture Research Institute (IARI), which had developed the technology. These research organisations provide a Soil Health Card (SHC) to farmers under the Soil Health Management (SHM) Scheme of the Central Government. The SHC is meant to indicate the fertilizer recommendations and soil health parameters required for the farmers.The STFR technology was commercialized by issuing licences to 14 companies, including the petitioner, Nagarjuna Agro, during 2012-2016.In 2015, Nagarjuna Agro entered into a trade agreement with Indian Institute of Soil Science (IISS) Bhopal, a unit of ICAR for commercialisation of technology ‘Mridaparikshak’, a mini soil laboratory capable of testing 10 parameters of the soil. Thereafter, it signed a second agreement with increased capacity to test 12 parameters and increased the costs.ICAR and IARI claimed that this was a violation of the 'non-disclosure of technology' clause by Nagarjuna Agro and that it had made 'Mridaparikshak' by replicating the STFR meter concept.Nagarjuna Agro, however, claimed that said STFR meter was not capable of testing 12 mandatory soil elements including Copper and Nitrogen. It was contended that the existing soil testing kit does not satisfy required parameters. Inter alia, the petitioner sought a direction to constitute a Committee of Experts to examine the STFR kit in different climatic conditions. .After examining the material on record, the Court in turn found that the petitioners before the Court did not appear bona fide in pursuing the matter. “No doubt that it is a serious matter, if the facts leading to it are established by the petitioners and the intervenor. In our view, the PIL suffers from lack of bonafide to collect and produce definite material by making genuine efforts and claim the relief, which ought to have been claimed.”Firstly, it was found that the petitioners appeared to have no public interest in the case. One of the petitions, stated to have been filed by agriculturist Anand Embadwar was found to have been filed at the behest of the Nagarjuna Agro. The Court remarked, "The petitioner is not the person directly aggrieved. The petitioner does not claim to be the “Expert” in the field of soil testing to question the authenticity or validity of STFR. It is not the averment in the PIL that the petitioner himself made any enquiry either from the licensees or from the farmers/agriculturists or from the beneficiaries of the subsidy scheme of the State Government, as to the effect of the STFR Meter. The petitioner does not explain as to how and what kind of interest he has in the subject-matter of the PIL ... ...we find that the petitioner... is a person, who can be described as the mouthpiece or spokesperson of Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals and the PIL is being prosecuted without having any public interest or having no intention to subserve the interest of the farmers. The petitioner in the PIL lacks bona fides and genuine public interest." .The Court proceeded to find that the petitioners have failed to substantiate their claims that the state research entities were involved in fraud and misrepresentation"The PIL does not give any details, the extent, and as to how and in what manner there is misrepresentation, cheating, mischief or fraud, said to have been practised upon the farmers and its actual effect on the soil, guided by the recommendations, if any…... we hold that the petitioners or the intervenor have failed to make out any case of misrepresentation, mischief, cheating or fraud on the farmers or other beneficiaries in respect of commercialization of STFR Meter.".While this is the case, the Court took critical note that it was Nagarjuna Agro that has been instrumental in misleading and misrepresenting various Government departments for commercial profiteering and gain without having any genuine and bona fide interest in raising such issues..Ultimately, the Court found that the pleas were filed for commercial gain by Nagarjuna Agro. “…We find that both these petitions and the application for intervention are actuated by ulterior motive of having commercial gain by eliminating the competition and creating monopoly using the process of the Court. This is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court…The petitioner Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals has made inconsistent and contradictory claims. It did not want to lose the benefits of STFR Meter, but wanted its marketing by others to be prohibited. The litigation is unnecessarily dragged on to spend valuable time of the Court for several days and the petitioners and the intervenor are responsible for it.”.Therefore, the Bench dismissed the pleas, while imposing Rs. 50 lakhs as costs on the petitioners. It was directed that the costs be divided in two parts of Rs. 25 lakhs each to be given to ICAR and IARI.The Court also asked the ICAR and IARI to initiate suitable action and possibly blacklist Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals in accordance with law. Senior Counsel MG Bhangde along with advocates RM Ghare and RS Sirpurkar appeared for the petitioners. The Central Government Research Institutes were represented by advocates Praveen Swarup and Mugdha R Chandukar. Assistant Government Pleader AM Joshi appeared for the State of Maharashtra. The STFR Manufacturers Association was represented by advocate R N Ghuge.[Read the Order]