Bombay High Court slaps ₹5 lakh costs on litigant who challenged law on immunity to judges

The Bombay High Court on Friday dismissed a petition challenging the constitutionality of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, a law meant to protect judges/ judicial officers from frivolous cases. .The Court also slapped costs of ₹5 lakhs on the litigant who filed the plea which not only challenged the validity of the 1985 law but also accused two members of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai of bias. The petitioner was the promoter of a Mumbai company who alleged that she had faced bias from members of the NCLT, Mumbai in the course of insolvency proceedings against her company. The petition also sought to restrain two members of the NCLT from exercising any jurisdiction in the insolvency matter at hand..A Bench of Justices Ravindra V Ghuge and Ashwin D Bhobe, however, found that the allegations against the tribunal members were baseless and liable to be dismissed."Besides making unsubstantiated, baseless, and unfounded allegations against the two learned members of the Tribunal, there are neither any circumstances set out in the Petition, nor is there any justification to entertain these prayers," it said..The Court further expressed frustration over the petitioner's misuse of judicial resources. It noted that she had consumed three hours of Court time, claiming urgent relief, despite the daily board being packed with 150 to 200 matters, including 100 to 125 urgent admission cases.The Court had to rearrange the schedule and push back other matters to accommodate the petition, leading to a loss of valuable judicial time. As a result, the Court imposed a cost of ₹2.5 lakhs specifically for wasting the Court's time, in addition to a ₹2.5 lakhs fine for her repeated, baseless claims.The Court added that the costs should be distributed to various charitable organizations, including those supporting children, animals, welfare causes, and the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa.The Court further observed that such penalties are necessary to deter unscrupulous litigants from wasting judicial resources and pursuing repetitive and baseless claims..The case before the High Court stemmed from ongoing insolvency proceedings against Manisha Nimesh Mehta's company, Perfect Infraengineers Ltd., initiated by the Technology Development Board (TDB) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Mehta had contested the classification of her company as a non-performing asset (NPA) by ICICI Bank during the COVID-19 pandemic, claiming that this classification denied her access to government-mandated loan repayment moratoriums and led to financial distress. She also argued that this resulted in actions under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act) which jeopardized her business..Aggrieved by the orders of the tribunal, Mehta challenged the immunity provided to judicial officers under Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. The Act protects judges from civil and criminal proceedings for actions taken while performing their judicial duties. The petitioner also accused NCLT-1 (Mumbai) members, Justice Virendrasingh G Bisht (judicial member) and Prabhat Kumar (technical member), of bias and unfair treatment.The petition sought other reliefs as well, including an order restraining ICICI Bank from proceeding with SARFAESI actions and preventing banks from obstructing her company's operations..During the hearing, Mehta’s counsel argued that judicial immunity should not extend to instances where judges act unfairly or dismiss evidence without due consideration, especially in cases involving financial distress. On the other hand, representatives for ICICI Bank and other respondents contended that the petition was a mere attempt at forum shopping, citing previous petitions filed by Mehta on similar issues.The Court eventually dismissed Mehta’s claims, stating that the order passed by NCLT to admit TDB's insolvency application could not be termed "perverse or illegal."It also criticized Mehta for attempting to mislead the Court by challenging the same issues repeatedly in different petitions, before eventually dismissing the plea. .Advocate Mathew Nedumpara along with advocate Hemali Merva appeared for the petitioner.Advocate Prashant Kamble along with Additional Government Pleader Himashu Takke appeared for the State.Advocate Sumedh Ruikar along with advocate Viraj Shelatkar instructed by advocate Pradip Yadav appeared for TDB and its officers.Advocate Anshul Anjarlekar instructed by Raval Shah & Co. appeared for the Board of Directors of ICICI Bank.Advocate Yahya Batatawala along with advocate Shneha Mishra appeared for a resolution professional..[Read Judgment]