SC imposes fine of 5 lakhs on litigant for contempt of court

New Delhi, May 20 (UNI) Strongly disapproving of the growing tendency among litigants appearing in person to deliberately create a situation to stultify the entire judicial process through misuse of latitude given to them by the courts, the Supreme Court has imposed exemplary costs of Rs five lakhs on a woman litigant for contempt of court.

A Bench, comprising Justices B P Singh and Harjit Singh Bedi, imposed the costs on one Samita Ambalal Patel but desisted from sending her to jail.

The court also directed the appellant Illa Pandya to deposit Rs 2.40 crores within three months with the Prothonotary, Bombay High Court, out of which costs of Rs five lakhs would be recovered and the amount would be donated to a charity to be identified by the Chief Justice of the High Court.

The appellant had married Vipin Pandaya on December 15, 1966 and took a divorce on May 24,1985. The couple got remarried on January 15, 1987. Vipin died intestate on November 4, 1995 leaving behind a huge property.

Illa filed a testamentary petition praying for grant of letter of administration for the estate of the deceased.

Respondent Samita Patel, however, filed a caveat claiming that the deceased had executed a will in her favour and that Illa was not the widow of the deceased as no remarriage had taken place.

Samita was convicted twice by the High Court for contempt of court by making reckless allegations against the advocates of the opposite party and also against judges.

The apex court in the judgment noted, ''We must emphasise that a court is not a forum which can be used for spewing venom and vitriol on the opposite party, and even more alarmingly, on the judges hearing the case and the counsel representing that party.

''The written arguments that the respondent has filed in the court betray her purpose. The new demands clearly reveal her intention to extort as much as she can from the appellant, who, it must be presumed, is exhausted and drained by the huge number of court proceedings that have been going on for the last 11 years.'' The court concluded by observing, ''The facts clearly reveal the incorrigible and recalcitrant attitude of the respondent. The record reveals that she is well aware of the conduct of judicial process, the law and facts relating to her case, but she has evolved a strategy which has thus far kept her in good stead as it has been designed to filibuster the proceedings in case she finds that they are not taking the direction that she had chalked out. Despite her conviction for contempt of court on two occasions and numerous admonitions and warnings notwithstanding, she remained unfazed and has in a most unbecoming manner relentlessly and ruthlessly pursued the litigation.'' The apex court also held that a petitioner appearing in person does not have a better right and status than a lawyer appearing for a party.

The apex court made it clear that the amount of Rs 2 crores and 40 lakhs would fully satisfy her caveatable interests and that no application of whatever nature in respect of these two matters will hereinafter be entertained by any court.

UNI