- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
SC fines Rs. 25K on Adarsh Scam accused for repetitive filing of applications terming it to be abuse of the process of law
A Supreme Court bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat came down heavily and imposed cost of Rs. 25,000 on an Adarsh Scam accused for having filed repetitive bail applications. The Court noted that repetitive filing of applications amounts to abuse of process of law.The accused had been granted bail for a period of two months on 15 June 2020 on the ground that...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
A Supreme Court bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat came down heavily and imposed cost of Rs. 25,000 on an Adarsh Scam accused for having filed repetitive bail applications.
The Court noted that repetitive filing of applications amounts to abuse of process of law.
The accused had been granted bail for a period of two months on 15 June 2020 on the ground that his mother was seriously ill. Later, he filed an application for extension of interim bail for a further period of six months on the ground that his mother passed away and he had to perform certain rituals.
On 10 August 2020, the Supreme Court extended the interim bail granted on 15 June 2020 for a further period of one month and directed the petitioner to surrender on or before 15 September 2020. The Court also made it clear that it would not entertain application for extension of interim bail.
The petitioner again applied for bail on the ground that he was suffering from epididymitis which is an inflammation of the tube at the back of the testicle and that unless properly treated, epididymitis can lead to complications. He also submitted that the number of Covid-19 patients in jail is increasing.
The Supreme Court took note of such repeated applications and observed, "Repetitive filing of applications amounts to abuse of process of law. This application is filed in spite of the order passed by this Court categorically stating that no further application for extension of interim bail shall be entertained. It is no more res integra that petitions/applications filed repeatedly are liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. Therefore, we dismiss this application with costs of Rs. 25,000."
The Court added, "Needless to mention that appropriate medical care will be provided to the Petitioner."