Here's a breakdown of a recent court decision where S. Venkatesan's request to file an appeal without paying due to financial hardship was denied. Let's dive into what happened.
S. Venkatesan wanted to challenge a decision that required him to pay over 2 crore rupees to Sundaram Fasteners Limited. He claimed he couldn't afford the court fee of about 22.8 lakh rupees and wanted to file the appeal without paying because he couldn't afford it.
Venkatesan, who is 66 and not working, argued that he lived off help from friends and family. He claimed he had no income or assets to pay the court fees.
"The petitioner states that he is not in employment after being terminated from the respondent company."
Sundaram Fasteners, represented by Mr. V.G. Jaganathan, argued that Venkatesan wasn't actually facing financial hardship. They showed bank statements with deposits of over 58 lakh rupees and claimed he owned properties.
"The petitioner possesses properties... the bank statements filed indicate sufficient source of income."
The court, led by Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, reviewed the evidence. They found Venkatesan's financial claims unconvincing because of his bank deposits and property ownership.
"The petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.58,06,479.20/- and admitted having properties."
The court dismissed Venkatesan's request to proceed without paying due to financial hardship, but allowed him two weeks to pay the court fee if he wanted to continue with the appeal.
"The present petition fails and consequently, stands dismissed."
This case shows how the court decides if someone really can't afford to pay and the importance of clear financial evidence.
