Dismissed

Harshad Himmatlal Rupani v. Electro Steel Castings Ltd.

Bombay HC14 Aug 2007CAF/1211/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the application for leave to prosecute an appeal as an indigent person. The Court found the applicant, a registered contractor with significant contract values, had sufficient means to pay the court fee.

What did the court decide?

The applicant's application to prosecute the appeal as an 'indigent person' is rejected; he is directed to deposit the court fee within two weeks.

Harshad Himmatlal Rupani Vs Electro Steel Castings Ltd. — Consumer Protection | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1211 OF 2006

¶5

IN

¶6

 FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 3612 OF 2006

¶7

 Harshad Himatlal Rupani. .. Applicant.

¶8

vs.

¶9

 M/s. Electro Steel

¶10

 Casting Ltd., .. Respondents.

¶11

 Harshad Rupani in person.

¶12

 Mr. Haresh Pandya a/w Ms. T. Pushna i/by Khaitan &

¶13

 Co. for Respondent No. 1.

¶14

 Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, AGP., for Respondent No. 2.

¶15

CORAM: J.N. PATEL &

¶16

 A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶17

 DATE: 14TH AUGUST 2007.

¶18

 P.C.

¶19

 . The applicant has filed this application and

¶20

 has sought leave to prosecute the appeal as an

¶21

 ’indigent person’. The matter was referred by the

¶22

 Court to the Registrar General to inquire into the
 claim of the applicant.

¶23

¶24

 2. As directed by this Court, the Registrar
 (Judicial-I) conducted an enquiry into the matter and
 arrived at a finding that the applicant cannot be
 considered as an ’indigent person’ having no means to
 deposit the court fee.

¶25

 3. The applicant has filed his exception to the
 report.

¶26

 4. We have heard the applicant in person, the
 learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and the learned
 A.G.P.

¶27

 5. It is the case of the applicant that he has no
 sufficient means to pay the court fee and though he is
 registered as "A" Class contractor with the State
 Government and has executed works worth crores of
 rupees, all his moveable and immovable assets are
 hypothecated / mortgaged and he is surviving on being
 maintained by his sister who is residing in Canada.

¶28

 6. In reply it has been brought to our notice by
 the learned AGP that the applicant has received crores
 of rupees from his work of contracts which is reflected
 in a tabular form statement tendered in the Court and
 that he has not offered any explanation as to where the
 moneys have gone. Similarly, the learned counsel for
 respondent no.1 submitted that the applicant has

¶29

¶30

 received remittances from abroad from his sister and
 huge amounts running into lacs of which he has given no
 accounts and according to the learned counsel for
 respondent no. 1 and the learned AGP., the applicant
 has suppressed his income in order to make out a case
 for seeking exemption from paying court fee for
 conducting the appeal.

¶31

 7. The applicant has placed reliance on various
 authorities in support of his contention on the issue
 of interpretation of the words "sufficient means",
 interpretation relevant to production of certain
 information or document and also on the concept of
 ’indigent person’. We find that for the purpose of
 considering whether the applicant should be permitted
 to prosecute the appeal as an ’indigent person’ we need
 not go through the authorities in detail as we have no

¶32

 quarrel over the issues. The point which has to be
 determined by this Court is whether the applicant be
 held to be an ’indigent person’ who does not have
 sufficient means to pay the court fee.

¶33

 8. It is not disputed by the applicant that he is
 registered as "A" Class contractor and has received
 bills for the works executed by him. What he has tried
 to present before the Registrar and is being reiterated
 before this Court is that all his assets moveable and
 immovable are either hypothecated or mortgaged and he
 is surviving on being maintained by his sister in

¶34

¶35

 Canada. Taking into consideration the payment received
 by the applicant out of various contracts executed by
 him in the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 and the fact that
 the applicant has sufficient assets which has come on
 record through the enquiry, it cannot be said that the
 applicant is an ’indigent person’. The plea taken by
 the applicant that all his moveable and immovable
 assets are hypothecated / mortgaged to financial
 institutions cannot be accepted so as to mean that he
 has no sufficient means to pay the court fees which is
 determined at Rs. 3 lacs when the record shows that
 the applicant is a "A" Class contractor of the State
 Government and has got various contracts worth crores
 of rupees which are being executed.

¶36

 9. On our specific query as to whether the
 applicant has approached the Court by getting him
 declared as insolvent, it is stated that it is not
 necessary as all his moneys are stuck up in litigation.

¶37

 10. We, therefore, do not find, considering the
 status of the applicant, who is a "A" Class contractor,
 who claims to be the highest tax payer since the year
 2000, to be a person without sufficient means to pay
 the court fee of the sum of Rs. 3 lacs. Therefore,
 his application to prosecute the appeal as an ’indigent
 person’ is rejected. The applicant is directed to
 deposit the court fee within two weeks. On his failure
 to deposit the court fee within the aforesaid period,

¶38

¶39

 the appeal would stand dismissed.

¶40

 11. The Civil Application stands disposed of
 accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶41

 (J.N. Patel, J. )
 (A.A. Sayed, J. )

Harshad Himmatlal Rupani v. Electro Steel Castings Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harshad Himmatlal Rupani v. Electro Steel Castings Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Mysore Petrochemicals Ltd. and Ors. Vs Mr. Dastgir Alam Mulla and Ors.

M/S. Mysore Petrochemicals Ltd. and Ors. Vs Mr. Dastgir Alam Mulla and Ors.

Stanley Parkar Jones Vs Bansraj Laltaprasad Mishra

Precision Tools Vs Pune Labour Union and Anr.

Raosaheb Gopinath Shitole Vs Hirabai Raosaheb Shitole

Kamal Devaram Bhosale and Ors. Vs Abdulla N. Merchant and Anr.