Skip to main content

Blog # 10. Unnecessary Litigations

On May 1, the Supreme Court’s three-Judge bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, J.S.Khehar, had imposed exemplary cost of Rs.25 lakh on the NGO, Suraz India Trust, for filing frivolous petitions, and wasting judicial time, and restrained the trust and its chairman, Rajiv Daiya, from filing any case, including PIL, in any court.
On June 22, the bench gave a reasoned order for its decision. The judgment, authored by CJI Khehar, on behalf of himself, and Justices D.Y.Chandrachud and Sanjay Kishan Kaul.   In its order, accompanying the judgment, the bench said that the imposition of exemplary costs on the Trust would discourage “the instant nature of indiscretion, not only at the hands of the Suraz India Trust, but also at the hands of other similarly placed individuals, who may have been emboldened, to adopt the course treaded by Rajiv Daiya.
Giving details of the 12 different petitions and applications, which were agitated by Daiya in 64 different proceedings since 2009, under the PIL jurisdiction of the Court, the bench expressed its doubts whether Daiya was a proxy litigant, and its dismay over why he should be keen to resolve complex legal questions involving the appointment of Judges in the Higher Judiciary, without having competence to understand the legal nuances himself.  In his petitions, he had challenged the constitutional validity of the Judges Inquiry Act, and repeatedly filed contempt petitions in the matter, when the  Supreme Court dismissed them.
The bench also expressed its dismay over his repeated prayer that his petition ought to have been heard by a 11-Judge bench as a “matter of his imagination, and not founded on any legal basis”.
The bench took note of the fact that Daiya did not attempt to even make the slightest effort, to reason out the same, or to demonstrate the veracity of his actions.  “The petitioner has been seriously remiss, in his judicial interventions”, the bench held.
In Paragraph 26, the bench observed: “Extremely important matters are taken  up for consideration on a daily basis, and they lag behind sometimes, because individuals who were not competent to assist this Court, insist without due cause, to be granted a prolonged hearing.   Hearing is sometimes sought (as in the instant case) even in matters, which the petitioners themselves are incompetent to understand and handle.  All such misadventures have to be dealt with sternly, so as to prevent abuse of judicial time. Specially by such individuals, who freely cast imaginary and scandalous accusations, in making out their submissions.”
The bench made it clear to Daiya that this order should considered as a warning enough, for the future.  It asked him to refrain himself from filing any cause in public interest, either directly or through any other individual, hereinafter, in any court.
The bench directed Daiya to deposit Rs.25 lakhs with the Supreme Court Advocates On Record Welfare Trust, within three months from May 1.  Failing deposit, the costs shall be recoverable from him through his personal proceeds, if necessary, it held.


  1. Obviously, is the real informative article, all guidance is recognizably genuine. Much obliged to you for this organization with us. I began to be intrigued and prompted it. I love your substance about litigations. File Taxes Online


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blog # 26. Concept of Real Income under the Income Tax Act, 1961

  What is Income ? Before understanding the concept of Real Income, it shall be important to go through the the term “Income” and “Real”. Income is defined under S.2(24) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter referred as “the Act”). The definition as provided under the Act is an inclusive definition so as to cover up all the usual as well as unusual items, however it certainly does not define it in a way that we can be said it to be precise. The same can be understood by various Judge Made Laws. The first and the lead amongst them is a Privy Council Judgment in the case of Kamakshya Narain   Singh CIT 11 ITR 513 (PC)         Facts The assesse was a “Raja” gave mining lease and He received payments by way of royalty for coal mines leased out to various lessees. The case of the Assessee was that this royalty income received by the Assessee was nothing but the recoupment of the resources which shall be exhausted by the end of the lease and thus the same was not income bu

Reference to TPO- Law & Important Judgements

Sec 92CA provides that the Assessing Officer (“AO”) may make reference to Transfer Pricing officer (“TPO”) for computation of arm's length price (ALP) of international transaction entered into by assessee if the AO considers necessary and expedient to do so with prior approval of Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. Further, CBDT instruction No. 3/ 2003 made it mandatory for AO to make such reference if the value of international transactions exceeded Rs. 5 crores. Transfer pricing arena has seen many disputes revolving around making reference to TPO and powers/duties of AO and TPO around that. In a recent landmark decision in the case of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., the Mumbai ITAT held that AO cannot make a reference to the TPO mechanically without applying his mind to the TP report or to any other material or information, despite CBDT Instruction No. 3/2003.The CBDT has recently revised CBDT Instruction No. 3/2003, by issuing  Instruction No. 15/2015 ,  which stated tha

Discussion on purchases held Bogus

Introduction Bombay High Court in Mahalaxmi Cotton Ginning Pressing and Oil Industries v The State of Maharashtra & Others (2012) 51 VST 1 (Bom.) (HC) (SLP dismissed by the Supreme Court) dealing with set off under section 48(5) and 51(7) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. Issue before the court was when dealer collects the taxes and does not deposit it in the Government Treasury, can the purchased be entitled to set off of the said taxes. Validity of the provision was challenged. Upholding the validity of the provision the court held that .Section 48(5) uses the expression “actually paid” in to the Government treasury. The words “actually paid” must receive their ordinary and natural meaning. There is no reason for the court to depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of these words when used in the context of section 48(5). To accept the contention that “actually paid…in the Government Treasury” should be read to mean the tax that ought t