Sarcastic strike by Gautam Patel J. Case listed “very low on board for 2020” + pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lakh

Justice Gautam Patel of Bombay High Court has earned a reputation for penning down sarcastic, yet hard hitting orders. Curt and laden with word-play, Justice Patel’s orders have attracted a lot of attention in recent times..Last year, his order on Indigo-GoAir case had taken a dig at the voluminous filings made by lawyers. Later that year, he had made a number of observations on a lawyer’s responsibility as an officer of the court..This time around, the judge has used his vocabulary skills to sarcastic effect in a petition concerning advertisements of women’s hair removal products..The case involves Gillette India and Reckitt Benckiser as parties. The order begins with the court granting time to the parties to complete their pleadings..“Far be it for me to come between Mr Dave and his filings. since Mr Dave says that there is a substantial Reply and his Rejoinder is likely to be equally substantial, the Rejoinder is to be filed and served in the Registry on or before 15th April 2017. I have no doubt that a Sur-Rejoinder will also then be necessary. Rather than wasting time in an application for adjournment: Affidavit in Sur-Rejoinder to be filed and served on or before 15th June 2017 and this will be followed by a month’s time until 20th July 2017 for an Affidavit in Sur-Sur-Rejoinder.”.The judge then takes it to another level when he directs that the matter be listed “very low on the board in November 2020”..“At this point all filings will stop. By then the record should have crossed at least 2000 pages. It will take any Court some time to read all this material. Hence, list the matter for direction very low on board on 3rd November 2020.”.The order then points out a very vital issue plaguing the system. Known in laymen’s terms as “Tarikh pe tarikh”, the order says,.“There is not the slightest urgency, and this is evident from the delay thus far and the application for three weeks’ time for an Affidavit in Rejoinder. Parties are in the meantime free to advertise, counter-advertise and re-advertise their respective products with such a statements as they believe are permissible or as their in-house legal counsel thinks fit.”.In an unexpected end, the Court proceeds to term the litigation an attempt to consume scarce judicial time. It, therefore, holds that no application for “priority hearing” will be entertained till a pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lakh is made by Gillette..“No application for priority hearing will be entertained; at least not until the Plaintiffs deposit in advance an amount of not less than Rs.10 lakhs to cover a potential order of costs for this attempt to consume scarce judicial time in a battle over advertisements of rival depilation products for women.”.Read the order below..HT to @TheGoanPatiala