2025 (11) TMI 849 - SCH - Indian Laws

Costs order to Legal Services Authority set aside where complainant did not seek payment and appellant lacked means

Rajeev Khandelwal Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr.

The SC set aside the High Court's order imposing costs on the appellant payable to the Legal Services Authority, holding the earlier precedent relied upon ... Dishonour of Cheque - cost imposed by the High Court by placing reliance upon Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. [2010 (5) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT] - HELD THAT:- Construing it to be a law would discourage settlements at the revisional stage. The appellant is not in a position to comply with the order passed. In any case, the direction is not to make payment to the complainant, the private respondent herein, but to the Legal Services Authority. Thus, when the complainant has no objection, there cannot be any mandate of law directing the appellant to pay any further amount. There are force in the submissions made by learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondents does not have any objection to appropriate orders being passed. The law laid down in the aforementioned judgment cannot be regarded as a binding precedent, as every case must be considered on its own facts - it is inclined to hold that the direction imposing costs on the appellant, to be paid to the Legal Services Authority cannot be sustained in the eye of law, particularly when the complainant does not want any further amount and the appellant has expressed his inability to comply with the same, which aspect is not in dispute. Appeal disposed off. Leave granted. Appellant, convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, had his revision pending when parties settled and the High Court acquitted him 'subject to the condition that he shall deposit the cost with the State Legal Services Authority' relying on Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663. Issue: validity of imposing such cost by treating that decision as binding law. It was held that the authority invoked Article 142 of the Constitution in Damodar and 'cannot be regarded as a binding precedent, as every case must be considered on its own facts.' Given the complainant's lack of objection and the appellant's inability to comply, the Court found the direction imposing costs payable to the Legal Services Authority 'cannot be sustained in the eye of law.' Appeal disposed; pending applications also disposed.