TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court condemns petitioner for abuse, vexatious litigation, and misconduct. Activist judges urged to combat irresponsible lawsuits.</h1> <h3>T. Arivandandam Versus T.V. Satyapal & Another</h3> The High Court dismissed the revision, condemning the petitioner for gross abuse of the court process, vexatious litigation, judicial misconduct, legal ... - Issues involved: Abuse of process of the court, vexatious litigation, judicial misconduct, legal legerdemain, contempt of court.Abuse of process of the court: The petitioner, son of the 2nd respondent, engaged in a series of legal proceedings to contest an eviction order obtained by his father, including filing a suit for declaration of fraud and collusion. The High Court granted time for vacating the premises, but the petitioner exploited this by filing another suit to gain more time. The litigative acrobatics continued with the petitioner and his father instituting another suit before a different Munsif, leading to the grant of an ex parte injunction which was later vacated. Despite repeated defeats, the petitioner managed to obtain injunctions through various legal maneuvers, including moving to the High Court in revision. The High Court dismissed the revision, condemning the petitioner for gross abuse of the court process.Vexatious litigation: The High Court found the suit pending before the First Munsif's Court to be a flagrant misuse of legal mercies, urging the Munsif to scrutinize vexatious suits at the outset and nip cleverly drafted causes of action in the bud. Emphasizing the need for activist judges to combat irresponsible lawsuits, the Court highlighted the importance of examining parties at the first hearing to weed out bogus litigation promptly. The Penal Code was cited as a resource to address such misconduct, with a call for deterrent action against vexatious motives in litigation.Judicial misconduct: The Court criticized the petitioner for repeatedly abusing the court process and condemned the party for inflicting an ordeal upon the High Court judge. The judge's torment was evident from his order, where he mentioned spending a sleepless night due to the petitioner's tactics. The Court emphasized the need for judges to resist bullying tactics and improper advocacy, ensuring that fruitless proceedings do not deter the pursuit of justice.Legal legerdemain and contempt of court: The petitioner's legal maneuvers, including filing multiple suits and obtaining injunctions through deceptive means, were deemed as legal legerdemain that undermined the credibility of the judicial system. While the Court refrained from taking contempt action due to counsel's reasonableness, it highlighted the contempt power as a tool to address litigants like the petitioner who abuse the court process. The Court dismissed the petition, urging the trial court to dispose of the vexatious suit promptly and take deterrent action if inspired by groundless motives.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
