PANDURANG VITHAL KEVNE versus BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: [2024] 12 S.C.R. 2113 · Decided: 19-12-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.K. MAHESHWARI
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 2113 : 2024 INSC 1051
Pandurang Vithal Kevne 
v. 
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr.
(Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 56230 of 2024)
20 December 2024
[J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court rightly disallowed Petitioner’s application 
for condonation of delay and rejected the second review petition 
in light of Petitioner’s repeated and frivolous litigation.
Headnotes†
Condemnation of unscrupulous litigation – Jumping from one 
forum to another despite the issue being well-settled through 
reasoned orders – A stark example of blatant misuse and abuse 
of the judicial process – Forum shopping by filing repetitive and 
meritless pleas in Supreme Court and High Court – Repetitive 
and meritless pleas deliberately delays proceedings – Wastes 
the court’s valuable time and resources and hinders efficient 
addressal of genuine and timely claims:
Held: The Petitioner repeatedly filed numerous meritless petitions, 
appeals and motions in multiple legal and administrative forums, 
even though his grievances had been well-settled through 
reasoned orders – The right to access the courts is a cornerstone 
of democracy, however, the right is not absolute and must be 
exercised responsibly – The Petitioner’s relentless and frivolous 
litigation spree has wasted the Court’s valuable time and resources, 
and is one of the reasons which results in choking the dockets in 
courts – Litigants engaging in forum shopping deliberately delay 
proceedings, eroding the very foundation of the legal system. 
[Paras 2-3, 17-18]
Consequences of filing frivolous appeals and petitions – 
Deterrence against such appeals and petitions by imposition 
of costs – Unscrupulous litigants polluting the stream of 
justice, putting hurdles in its dispensation to others – Heavy 
*Author
2114
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
cost on Petitioner a clear message to others for not daring to 
play with the Judicial System – Duty of Courts to curb such 
type of litigation:
Held: Condemning litigants who use the justice system for their 
benefit and attempt to pollute the streams of justice, this Court 
discussed raising deterrence against such frivolous pleas by imposing 
costs on the litigating parties – Based on previous well-reasoned 
orders of the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, the 
Special Leave Petition was dismissed as the Supreme Court found 
no merit in the Petition – Therefore, the application for condonation 
of delay was also dismissed – A cost of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One 
Lakh) was imposed on the Petitioner to give a clear message to 
unscrupulous litigants who are polluting the stream of justice and 
putting hurdles in its dispensation to others – It is the duty of the 
Courts at different levels to curb such type of litigation that chokes 
the justice system resulting in delays in decision of other cases. 
[Paras 19-23]
Case Law Cited
Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, 2014 INSC 367 : [2014] 
12 SCR 573; Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2009 INSC 
1277 : [2009] 16 SCR 111; K.C. Tharakan v. State Bank of 
India & Ors., W.P. (C) Diary No(s). 27458/2022 decided on 
01.05.2023 – relied upon.
List of Keywords
Special Leave Petition; Second Review Petition; Condonation 
of delay; Industrial dispute; Frivolous litigation; Forum shopping; 
Meritless pleas; Imposition of costs; Blatant misuse of judicial process.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Civil) 
Diary No. 56230 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.06.2024 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay in IA No. 2748 of 2021 in Review Petition 
(L) No. 7558 of 2021
Appearances for Parties
Randhir Kumar Ojha, Adv. for the Petitioner.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
2115
Pandurang Vithal Kevne v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1.	
The present Special Leave Petition has been filed impugning the 
order dated 11.06.2024 vide which the High Court1 was pleased to 
disallow the petitioner’s Application for condonation of delay2 and 
rejected the Second Review Petition.3
2.	
This Special Leave Petition before us is yet another stark example of 
the blatant misuse and abuse of the judicial process. The petitioner, 
seemingly blinded by his own sense of grievance, has embarked on 
a relentless and frivolous litigation spree, dragging this Court and 
the High Court through multiple meritless review petitions, appeals, 
and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.