The Bombay High Court bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Advait M Sethna imposed a ₹5 lakh cost on a litigant for filing a frivolous writ petition that wasted over two and a half hours of the court's valuable time.

The case revolved around a land dispute involving G.B. Industries, which occupied property owned by a widow, Minakshi Balasao Magdum, under a leave-and-license agreement that expired on 6th March 2020. Despite losing any legal rights after the agreement expired, the petitioner refused to vacate and made unfounded claims of tenancy to seek compensation for the land's acquisition for the Kolhapur Airport project. The petitioner initiated several legal actions, all of which were dismissed by the courts.

Advocate Ganbavle, for the petitioner, argued for tenancy and compensation rights over the land and a shed valued at ₹17 lakhs, but failed to substantiate these claims. The leave-and-license agreement explicitly denied such rights, and the petitioner’s assertions had already been rejected by the Civil and District Courts. Despite this, he sought relief based on unfounded arguments.

Advocate Haridas, for respondents 1 to 3, argued that the petitioner has no legal right to the property in question. He stated that the petitioner has initiated civil court proceedings and sought compensation without any legal basis, thereby harassing respondent No.1, a widow, through unwarranted litigation. He emphasized that the petitioner's claims were already addressed in the civil suit and are also pending in an appeal. Additionally, the petitioner failed to obtain an injunction, further underscoring the lack of a valid legal claim. Mr. Haridas contended that the current proceedings constitute an abuse of process and should be dismissed with exemplary costs.

Advocate Deshpande represented Respondent No. 6, the acquiring body. After reviewing the relevant documents related to his client, the court formed the impression that Mr. Tejsingh Pawar, Additional Collector, did not act fairly. The court found that the Additional Collector had either overlooked or misconstrued the orders of the Civil Court when he issued the letter dated 26 September 2024.

After hearing the submission made by the Advocates the court was of the view that the present proceeding is a grossest abuse of the process of law.

The court expressed concern about the increasing trend of frivolous litigation, highlighting that it wastes judicial resources and obstructs the rights of legitimate claimants.

"At the cost of wasting valuable time of the Court of more than 2.30 hours and at the cost of other litigants waiting for their turn, the petitioner consciously wasted the Court's time on such proceedings. We cannot overlook that in the present times when the pressure on the Court is mounting, litigants persist to assert such frivolous pleas. This is a new trend which we have noticed in several matters." the Court stated.

The Court found that the writ petition and the earlier suit were filed with the malicious intent to harass the landowners and to delay their rightful land acquisition compensation.

“Be that as it may, we have passed this detailed order considering all contentions raised before us, suffice it to observe that such untenable persistence of the litigant cannot be brushed aside lightly. The Court would certainly not countenance abuse of the process of law. The litigants who can afford to abuse the process of law on the strength of resources available to them to litigate, certainly would be an aspect which cannot be overlooked by the Court in dismissing such proceedings with exemplary costs. More so, this is a case of widow who is made to suffer multiple proceedings and is harassed by the petitioner.” the court added.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition with exemplary costs of ₹5,00,000, which the petitioner was directed to pay to respondents 1 to 3 within two weeks. It ordered that, in case of non-compliance, the amount would be recovered as land revenue by attaching the firm’s and partners’ assets, including movable properties and bank accounts. The petitioner and its partners were instructed to file an affidavit disclosing their assets within two days and were prohibited from transferring immovable property or substantial funds above ₹50,000 without prior Court permission until the payment was made. The case was listed for compliance regarding the disclosure affidavit on December 2, 2024.

Case Details: G.B. Industries Reg. Partnership Firm Thr. Its Partners Vishal S. Bhogate Vs. Minakshi Balasao Magdum And Ors. Writ Petition No. 17261 of 2024

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Shrikrishna Ganbavle a/w Mr.. Ruturaj Pawar a/w Mr. Dheeraj Patil

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. R.M. Haridas a/w Mr. Prasad P. Kulkarni, Mr. Somanath Thongal, Mr.ananda Chavan for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl. G.P. a/w Ms. M.S. Bane, AGP for State – Respondent Nos.4, 5 and 7.

Mr. Nitin Deshpande for the Respondent No.6.