Wednesday, Aug 10, 2022 | Last Update : 02:21 AM IST

  Metros   Mumbai  01 Mar 2017  Gillette gets lashed for wasting court’s scarce judicial time

Gillette gets lashed for wasting court’s scarce judicial time

Published : Mar 1, 2017, 5:52 am IST
Updated : Mar 1, 2017, 7:03 am IST

The companty’s sought “several weeks time” to file a rejoinder in a commercial suit.

The Bombay High Court
 The Bombay High Court

Mumbai:A Bombay high court judge, Justice G.S. Patel, came down heavily on Gillette India Limited for “its attempt to consume scarce judicial time” after the company’s counsel sought “several weeks’ time” to file a rejoinder in a commercial suit against Reckitt Benckiser.

Gillette on December 22, 2016, filed a commercial suit against Reckitt Benckiser claiming that the latter promoted its own depilation products for women by belittling Gillette’s products in advertisements. When the case came up for hearing, counsel for Gillette, Advocate Nimay Dave, sought several weeks’ time for filing a rejoinder. Exasperated by Advocate Dave’s request, Justice Patel held that as the plaintiff required further extension of time in future as well, the case should be placed to come up for hearing only in November 2020.

Justice Patel agreed to Advocate Dave’s request but was at his sarcastic best in saying, “Far be it for me to come between Advocate Dave and his filings. Since he says that there is a substantial reply and his rejoinder is likely to be equally substantial, the rejoinder is to be filed and served in the registry on or before April 15, 2017. I have no doubt that a Sur-rejoinder will also then be necessary. Rather than wasting time in an application for adjournment: affidavit in Sur-rejoinder to be filed and served on or before June 15, 2017, followed by a month’s time till July 20, 2017, for an affidavit in Sur-rejoinder.” The judge added that as the rejoinders would cause the suit to run into nearly 2,000 pages and the court would require some time to read the material, the matter rather be heard on November 3, 2020.

Justice Patel said that as there was not the slightest urgency on the part of the parties, “No application for priority hearing will be entertained; at least not until the plaintiffs deposit in advance an amount of not less than Rs 10 lakh to cover potential order of costs for this attempt to consume scarce judicial time.”

Tags: nimay dave, bombay high court, gillette
Location: India, Maharashtra, Mumbai (Bombay)