Tuesday, Sep 27, 2022 | Last Update : 11:00 PM IST

  Metros   Mumbai  06 Mar 2018  Trust fined for delay in replying to court

Trust fined for delay in replying to court

THE ASIAN AGE.
Published : Mar 6, 2018, 2:37 am IST
Updated : Mar 6, 2018, 2:40 am IST

However, the advocate for the defendants opposed the extension and suggested that conditions be put on the trust.

The advocate for the trust told justice G.S. Patel that the trust needed a week’s time to file the affidavit  it was supposed to file on November 25, 2016.
 The advocate for the trust told justice G.S. Patel that the trust needed a week’s time to file the affidavit it was supposed to file on November 25, 2016.

Mumbai: Asserting that the court would make exceptions for the poor, illiterate and helpless but not for the educated class, the Bombay high court levied a fine of Rs 4.5 lakh on a trust for not responding to court hearings and resorting to delaying tactics.

The advocate for the trust (plaintiff) informed justice G.S. Patel that the trust needed a week’s time to file the affidavit it was supposed to file on November 25, 2016, after justice 

K.R. Shriram framed issues in the suit (filed in 2009) on September 26, 2016. 

However, the advocate for the defendants opposed the extension and suggested that conditions be put on the trust.

Accepting the suggestion, justice Patel said that there were only two options: either to grant the extension with certain terms, or close the case. Stating that the latter would be harsh, justice Patel said that the trust would have to pay for the cost of delay which amounted to Rs 4.5 lakh for a delay of 450 days, calculated at the rate of Rs 1,000 per day.

When the trust sought a reduction in the amount, justice Patel said, “Is it that because the first plaintiff is a trust, a different standard should be applied! All parties are exactly the same before a court. We will make exceptions for the poor, illiterate and helpless. They will receive our protection. But educated trustees with a solemn fiduciary duty will not get free pass just because they claim to espouse some worthy cause.”

Justice Patel rapped the trust saying, “Compliance is mandatory and not optional. Justice Shriram’s orders cannot be treated with such contempt and disregard. It cannot be assumed that non-compliance with his or any other court’s orders has no consequence.”

Tags: bombay high court, affidavit, shriram