Delhi High Court Slams IDBI Bank for Abusing Judicial Process, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost

Delhi High Court Slams IDBI Bank for Abusing Judicial Process, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost

The Delhi High Court has levied a fine of ₹1 lakh on IDBI Bank for its consistent changes in stance and for seeking the recall of an order four months after it had been issued.

A Division Bench comprising Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Saurabh Banerjee addressed an application filed by IDBI Bank, which sought the recall of the court's order dated November 15, 2022. This earlier order resulted in the removal of IDBI Bank as a party in the appeal.

The Court observed that the IDBI Bank’s application was deemed a misuse of the judicial process. It held that while genuine mistakes can and should be forgiven, if any party, such as the appellant in this case, is observed to frequently change their position, leading to the wastage of valuable public time, then such a litigant becomes liable to bear the costs. Furthermore, as no merit was found in the current application, the Court decided to dismiss it and impose of fine of ₹1,00,000 on the applicant. The Court directed that this amount should be paid in favour of AWWA – Army Wife Welfare Association for their welfare.

The Court took note of the fact that the order had been issued based on a statement made by IDBI's counsel, who asserted that IDBI could not be included as a party in the appeal because it had not been a party in front of the single-judge.

The Court observed that the current counsel representing IDBI is now asserting that the lawyer who appeared on November 15 was acting as a proxy counsel and that there were no such instructions from the bank at that time.

“When learned counsel for applicant/IDBI submits that the present application has been filed seeking recall of order dated 15.11.2022 passed by this Court, this Court observed that the present application is misuse of judicial process of law, he submitted that the statement made on 15.11.2022 was not on behalf of IDBI bank/his client, however, bona fidely admitted having made a mistake and sought an apology from this Court,” the Court said.

Additionally, the Court took note of the fact that the application had been submitted four months after the order was issued, and an amended memo of parties had been filed subsequent to the order being passed.

The Court concluded that the counsel representing the appellant, who initially supported the current application but later acknowledged doing so without proper instructions from his client, could potentially face contempt of court proceedings or be directed to bear costs. However, the Bench chose not to pursue these actions in this instance.

IDBI Bank was represented by advocates Yargyal and Rajive R Raj. Advocates Rajiv Bajaj and Kara Prakash appeared on behalf of the appellant, Bela Goyal, Proprietor of Ispat Sangrah India. The respondent, VIIPL-MIPL JV (Jaipur), was represented by Senior Advocate Pinky Anand, along with advocates Adarsh Kothari, Sardamini Sharma, Reeva Gujral, Adees Jasmine Kaur, and Shantany Raj.