Disposed

Anand College of Education v. Ncte and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Feb 2015LPA/175/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This letters patent appeal challenged the imposition of penal costs on the appellant for suppression of facts and a subsequent dismissal of an application to modify that order. The appellate court declined to interfere with the single judge's discretion but granted liberty to the appellant to move a new application demonstrating genuine repentance for leniency.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of the appeal with liberty to the appellant to move an application before the learned Single Judge seeking relief on terms of compassionate discretion.

Anand College of Education Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Letters Patent Appeal No.175 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 02, 2015

¶3

Anand College of Education for Women .....Appellant versus

¶4

National Council for Teacher Education and others

¶5

.....Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH.

¶7

Present:Mr.Sameer Sachdeva, Adv. for the appellant.

¶8

-.-

¶9

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶11

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

¶13

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶14

This letters patent appeal is directed against the order dated 26.08.2013 primarily against the imposition of cost of Rs.1.0 lac on the appellant which are as per the order of the learned Single Judge, required to be deposited with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority, followed by a compliance affidavit. The order dated 28.11.2014 dismissing the appellant's application seeking modification of the abovementioned order, which was moved pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court on 11.10.2013 in LPA No.1776 of 2013, is also under challenge in this appeal.

¶15

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. There can indeed be no second opinion that when

¶16

a litigant does not approach the Court with clean hands, it is the duty of the Court to take stern action including imposition

¶17

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.02.25 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

LPA No.175 of 2015 (O&M)

¶19

[2]

¶20

of penal costs so as to dissuade the unscrupulous litigants from entering the corridors of temple of justice. The discretion exercised by learned Single Judge in the instant case, in imposing costs on the appellant on account of suppression of material facts, thus would not ordinarily call for any interference by this appellate forum.

¶21

What should, however, be done in a case where the litigant is repentant of his conduct and seeks mercy?

¶22

The answer would again be of wide range depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The salutary grinding factor would be that the degree of repentance, the mitigating circumstances, the call for a mercy and the prayer to show compassion wherever so warranted, should be placed for consideration before the same Court who has been hurt by the conduct of the litigant.

¶23

The Courts are the sea of compassion. One should only learn not to play with the waves.

¶24

The appellant, as it appears, did invoke the compassion twice but not within pious heart. We are still of the view that should the appellant be the genuine repentant to exhibit its bonafide with an undertaking that henceforth, there shall be nothing wanting in its conduct, we are sanguine that the learned Single Judge would show his malignity and take a lenient so as to reduce the quantum of costs. We, therefore, dispose of this appeal with liberty to the appellant to move yet another application before the learned Single Judge and make out a case within the periphery of compassionate discretion as outlined above.

¶25

We have neither expressed any opinion on merits nor we intend to infringe upon the absolute discretion that

¶26

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.02.25 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

LPA No.175 of 2015 (O&M)

¶28

[3]

¶29

vests in the learned Single Judge only.

¶30

Dasti.

¶31

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE

¶32

February 02, 2015 [RAJ MOHAN SINGH] Mohinder JUDGE

¶33

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.02.25 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Anand College of Education v. Ncte and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand College of Education v. Ncte and Ors.

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

Sanjeev & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Suresh Kumar and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Tirlok Chand etc. Vs Sarkhan Singh etc.

Devinder Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Amar Singh Vs the Collector Yamuna Nagar etc.

Bhale Ram Vs Commissioner Hissar Division Hissar & Ors.