Supreme Court Fines Man Rs 1.2 Lakh For 'Legal Misadventure'

Describing an appeal as "legal misadventure", the Supreme Court imposed a cost of Rs 1.2 lakh on the appellant on Thursday, saying that pursuing the case resulted in wastage of precious judicial time of the Madras High Court, which could have answered the "call of justice" raised by the "teeming millions".

The top court was hearing an appeal filed by B Govardhan against a Madras High Court verdict in a dispute over a loan and the consequential row over mortgage of properties by the debtor in favour of the lender.

A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, which set aside the verdict of a division bench of the high court, was critical of the appellant, Govardhan, pursuing the case and wasting judicial time.

"Alas, only if things were as simple as they seemed.... However, for such legal misadventure resulting in wastage of precious judicial time of the high court, which could have been better spent answering the call of justice raised by the teeming millions, we impose costs of Rs 1.2 lakh on the appellant," said Justice Amanullah, who wrote the judgment for the bench.

The verdict said the cost shall be deposited within six weeks with the high court registry.

It said the high court will utilise Rs 40,000 for juvenile welfare and an equal amount has to be used for the welfare of the advocates' clerks in a manner to be decided by the acting chief justice.

"Rs 40,000 for legal aid in a manner to be decided by the High Court Legal Services Committee. Receipt of deposit be filed in the registry of this court soon thereafter. In case of non-compliance, the matter will be placed before us with appropriate Office Report," the apex court said.

According to the details of the case, P Ragothaman and his wife, who were engaged in the business of building materials, had approached Govardhan in 1995 for a loan of Rs 10 lakh on the security of his properties. From there the dispute arose.

Subsequently, the dispute was heard by a single-judge bench of the high court, which in 2010 held that Ragothaman had agreed to "create equitable mortgage by depositing the title deeds".

A division bench, while hearing an intra-court appeal, allowed Ragothaman's plea and held that it could not be proved that there was a mortgage executed by the respondent.

The top court restored the single-judge bench verdict that there was equitable mortgage. It, however, reduced the rate of interest from 36 per cent per annum to 12 per cent per annum in the interest of justice. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)