Tanisha Rana
Published on: October 11, 2022 at 21:39 IST
The Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act 1949 is a rarely used state law that the Madras High Court recently requested Tamil Nadu Advocate General R Shunmugasundaram consider using against a Chennai resident who appeared to have a pattern of filing frivolous litigation in various courts throughout the State.
In a decision rendered on September 30, a bench of Justices Paresh Upadhyay and D Bharatha Chakravarthy gave the Advocate General freedom to review the evidence in the case and issue the proper sanctions against the plaintiff, Azizul Karim.
The bench declared that it was persuaded Karim was a habitual litigant who filed frivolous lawsuits before numerous courts, and that such actions called for the invocation of the 1949 Act.
However, since the state legislation only gives the AG the authority to use its provisions against any private individual and only gives the Court the authority to issue recommendations, the Bench urged Shunmugasundaram to make the ultimate decision.
“We note that, on the basis of the material produced before this Court, prima facie we find that appropriate order needs to be passed against the present appellant, invoking provisions of the Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1949”
“However, we clarify that, these observations are prima facie in nature and in the event learned Advocate-General arrives at the satisfaction that such an order need not be passed, our observations will not bind him, leaving it open to the respondents of these appeals to take recourse to the remedy available to them under the law,” the order stated.
The directives were given by the court in a batch of appeals that Karim had brought against an interim order rendered by a single judge in a 2017 civil case.
The Bench had indicated on September 22 that it was inclined to reject Karim’s petitions. However, his attorney asked for a day to acquire his client’s orders before dropping the appeals.
The attorney did not show up the next day or on any subsequent hearing dates. The phone number listed in the case bundle turned out to be Karim’s personal line when an attempt was made to contact him.
On September 30, the attorney made his long-awaited appearance and asked for permission to withdraw the appeals.
The Court, noting that it had previously stated that Karim had abused the legal system, rejected the identical request.
Karim has previously welcomed criticism and directives from the Single-judge, the court added.
As a result of these revelations, the Single Judge had, in September 2021, requested that an officer with the level of Assistant Commissioner of Police conduct a thorough inquiry into the man’s activities.
Karim had been represented by attorney R Natarajan, and the respondents had been represented by attorney M Nandhakumar.