1.       This complaint has been filed by Taj Export and World Security Printing Press (complainant) against the Central Bank of India (opposite party). It is listed for hearing on admission. Mr. Asutosh Sharma, advocate appears as amicus curiae for the complainant.   

2.       The complainant is a firm, represented through its partner Mr. Jayanti Prasad Gautam.

3.       A perusal of the record shows that the complaint was filed on 05.09.2017. Numerous proceedings were undertaken before the Registrar of this Commission till 16.03.2018. Defects were not removed. 

The case was placed before the bench on 28.11.2018. No one appeared for the complainant. A letter was received by the Registry from the complainant seeking time to remove the objections. The complainant was granted one last and final opportunity to remove the defects within eight weeks.

On 23.04.2019 proceedings were conducted before the Registrar of this Commission. No one appeared for the complainant. Defects were not removed.

The case was placed before the bench on 22.05.2019. On the request of Mr. Jayanti Prasad Gautam, partner of the complainant firm, Ms. K. Radha, advocate was appointed amicus curiae to represent the complainant firm. 

On 31.10.2019 Mr. Jayanti Prasad Gautam submitted that the counsel (Ms. K. Radha) appointed for him was not conversant with Hindi whereas he was not conversant with the language of the counsel. Another advocate, Ms. Rekha Aggarwal was appointed amicus curiae to contest the case on behalf of the complainant.

On 28.11.2019 Ms. Rekha Aggarwal, learned amicus curiae submitted that the complainant was not co-operating with her and was not rendering the desired assistance. The complainant was directed to give full co-operation and assistance to the learned amicus curiae. After the order was dictated Mr. Jayanti Prasad Gautam appeared at around 3.30 p.m. and insisted that his case be taken up on a day-to-day basis three times a day, he stated that he did not want any advocate and wanted only the litigation expenses to be borne by this Commission, he also submitted that several other matters had been filed by him and the same have not been listed for want of the statutory deposit. The bench requested that this matter be listed before some other bench subject to orders of Hon’ble President. On the request of Mr. Jayanti Prasad Gautam, partner of the complainant firm, Ms. Rekha Aggarwal, advocate, who had been appointed as amicus curiae, was requested to return all the papers to him. 

On 02.12.2019 the case was listed before another bench. Mr. Jayanti Prasad Gautam insisted that the matter be heard thrice a day and on day-to-day basis. He was not ready to cooperate and was creating a scene. The bench directed that the matter be listed before another bench with the permission of the Hon’ble President. 

On 10.01.2020 the case was listed before another bench. Ms. Priyanka Paride, advocate appeared with Mr. Jayanti Prasad Gautam. She submitted that she will be filing vakalatnama for the complainant. Mr. Jayanti Prasad Gautam was not satisfied and said that his case should be heard thrice on day-to-day basis. He further stated that the bench will not be able to decide his case. He requested that his case be sent to the Hon’ble President for appropriate orders for sending his case to some other bench.

On 05.02.2020 the case was listed before another bench. Mr. Jayanti Prasad Gautam was present in person. It was ordered that the matter be listed on the date already fixed. Mr. Jayanti Prasad Gautam requested that the next date be modified. His request was acceded to, and the date was modified. 

On 12.04.2021 the case was repeatedly called out. No one was present for the complainant. The case was adjourned. 

On 07.07.2021 Mr. Asutosh Sharma, advocate appeared for the complainant. He requested for an adjournment of four weeks to inspect the file and to prepare his brief. 

4.       Today Mr. Asutosh Sharma, advocate submits that he was appointed amicus curiae on behalf of the complainant vide letter dated 26.02.2021 issued under the signatures of the Deputy Registrar of this Commission.

Mr. Asutosh Sharma, learned amicus curiae further submits that he wants to return the brief. 

5.       The history of this case has been briefly recapitulated above. The complaint was filed in 2017. It is still pending hearing on admission. On occasions Mr. Jayanti Prasad Gautam, partner of the complainant firm appeared for the complainant, once an advocate engaged by the complainant firm appeared. Three different learned advocates have been provided as amicus curiae by this Commission, two of them (Ms. K. Radha and Ms. Rekha Agarwal) have been changed due to objections of Mr. Jayanti Prasad Gautam, one of them (Mr. Asutosh Sharma) does not want to hold his brief. Three different benches have recused from hearing this case. 

6.       This appears to be a clear case of unreasonably insinuating and impragmatic non-serious prosecution, wasting the time and resources of this Commission.

We have to choose between further indulgence towards the complainant firm or using the time and resources of this Commission for other cases before it. We do not propose to err on the side of indulgence any further.  

7.       In the given facts and circumstances we deem it just and appropriate to dismiss this complaint, with an explicit observation that the complainant firm shall be at liberty to seek remedy in any other forum or court as may be available to it under the law. 

8.       Mr. Asutosh Sharma, learned amicus curiae is discharged from this case. The Registrar is requested to ensure his remuneration as per the rules within two weeks. 

9.       The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the complaint and to Mr. Jayanti Prasad Gautam, partner of the complainant firm, immediately. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission, immediately.