The Madras High Court recently noted, while imposing a cost of Rs.1 lakh on a frivolous petitioner that far too often, courts are burdened with dishonest litigants trying to avoid debts by resorting to non-existent, mercy jurisdiction writ courts. This observation was made in the case of P Sudhakar v The Union Secretary, Ministry of Finance, and others. The bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted in the case that, there is an efficacious alternative remedy that is available for the petitioner, and the law that governs it also recognizes the same.
The order observed that very frequently, the courts are burdened with unethical and dishonest litigants seeking to escape debts owed to banks and financial institutions by pleading on the grounds of the non-existent mercy jurisdiction of the Writ Court, the bench observed that it is now high time to put such baseless litigation to an end and duly punish the dishonest debtors,
In the present case, the petitioner requested directions from the Court to a bank to consider the representation of the petitioner as a mutual settlement in the matter regarding the repayment of the loan. The court observed that this is another of those frivolous matters in which the court is approached by the petitioner seeking to issue a writ on the grounds of mandamus directing the bank, even if it is a nationalized bank, with a view to settling its commercial disputes with the petitioner in a particular way. the bench observed that It is too late to enlighten the petitioner that the court does not possess such authority under the powers vested in it by article 226 of the Indian constitution
The Court vehemently denied the petition on the grounds that the petitioner is entitled to pursue his case in the proper forum. In doing so, the Court also ordered the petitioner to pay Rs. 1 lakh to the respondent bank as expenses.