Steps to Combat Litigations Against Maharashtra- Headquartered Companies

Litigations & Technique in Cases Against Maharashtra - Headquartered Companies

Ensure that no adjournment is granted to the Company and for every adjournment sought, costs are imposed which is to be recovered from the salary / pension of the concerned employee of the Company at whose behest the adjournment was sought. Invoke S.35B of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Order XVII.  You can rely on Juhi Chawla v. SERB [2021] GCtR 1028 (Delhi) and also on [2019] GCtR 6238 (Bombay) to argue that costs so imposed for each adjournment should not be less than Rs. 20 lacs.

Also rely on Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana [1995] GCtR 90885 (SC) to argue for maximum sentence of concerned employee / CEO of the Company who has signed on the pleading on behalf of the Company by raising the argument of false affidavit and for imposing sentence of not less than 3 months on the concerned CEO / employee of such Company.

Ensure that whenever any such ground which is taken by Company fails to succeed then argue that such ground is frivolous and rely on S.35A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for arguing that costs of Rs. 20 lacs are imposed which is recovered from the salary / pension of the concerned employee.  You can rely on Juhi Chawla v. SERB [2021] GCtR 1028 (Delhi) to argue that costs so imposed should not be less than Rs. 20 lacs.

Further, whenever you have to file a case and you win the case, make a submission that since you have to suffer and spend money, the Company should be saddled with costs which is to be recovered from salary / pension of concerned employee of the Company responsible for wrong decision / no decision / delayed decision. You can rely on Juhi Chawla v. SERB [2021] GCtR 1028 (Delhi) to argue that costs so imposed should not be less than Rs. 20 lacs.

Further, whenever such Company files a case and does not wins the case, make a submission that since you have to suffer and spend money because of such litigation, the Company should be saddled with costs which is to be recovered from salary / pension of concerned employee of Company responsible for wrong decision / no decision / delayed decision. You can rely on Juhi Chawla v. SERB [2021] GCtR 1028 (Delhi) to argue that costs so imposed should not be less than Rs. 20 lacs.

Ensure that no delay at any step of litigation by such Company is condoned. Invoke State of MP v. Ramkumar Choudhary [2024] GCtR 3099 (SC) ;  New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt Ltd [2020] GCtR 956 (SC) ; NICL v. Mubinuddin [2023] GCtR 601 (SCDRC, Delhi). 

Ensure that costs are imposed and the costs so imposed are recovered from salary / pension of the concerned employee. Use PSPCL v. Atma Singh Grewal [2013] GCtR 6208 (SC) ; Assistant Director, ED v. Kamal Ahsan [2022] GCtR 1550 (SC). You can rely on Juhi Chawla v. SERB [2021] GCtR 1028 (Delhi) to argue that costs so imposed should not be less than Rs. 20 lacs.

Ensure that disciplinary action is taken against concerned employee of the Company and responsibility of CEO is also fixed. Invoke State of MP v. Ramkumar Choudhary [2024] GCtR 3099 (SC) ; State of Jharkhand v. Lalu Yadav @ Lalu Prasad Yadav [2017] GCtR 626 (SC).

You can also use Galada Power v. UIIC [2016] GCtR 2092 (SC) and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [1977] GCtR 4665 (SC) to block additional grounds taken by Company in litigations. 

You can also use S.72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for sending the concerned CEO / Employee of the Company behind bars for 3 years. 

Ensure that if CEO does not takes disciplinary action against the employees, then contempt proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is initiated against CEO. Invoke E. Bapanaiah v. K.S. Raju [2014] GCtR 4056 (SC) to argue that maximum term of imprisonment should be granted.