Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (2.68 seconds)Section 499 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Vinod Seth vs Devinder Bajaj & Anr on 5 July, 2010
32. It has been made clear by the Hon'ble Apex Court that compensatory cost could be imposed under Section 35A of the Code of Civil Procedure, to make a deterrent effect against filing of vexatious, frivolous and speculative litigations. It is the discretion of the Court to decree a suit or dismiss the same with costs or without costs, however, it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Awarding costs should ensure that the provisions of the Code, Evidence Act and other laws governing procedure are scrupulously and strictly complied with and that the parties do not adopt delaying tactics or mislead the court. Similarly, the court should provide adequate indemnity to the successful litigant for the expenditure incurred by him towards the litigation. It was also held in the decision in Vinod Seth v. Devender Bajaj and Anr., (Referred to above) that provisions relating to the compensatory cost (Section 35 A of the Code) in respect of false or vexatious claims or defence has become virtually infructuous or ineffective, on account of inflation. Under the said section, awarding of compensatory cost, in case of false and vexatious litigation was subject to a ceiling of Rs.3,000/-.
Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 200 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Salem Advocate Bar Association,Tamil ... vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2005
However, it was made clear that the same requires a realistic revision keeping in view, the observations in Salem Advocates Bar Association (Supra). It is also relevant to consider that lack of appropriate provisions relating to costs has resulted in a steady increase in malicious, vexatious, false, frivolous and speculative suits, apart from increase in docket explosion, making the object of Section 89 of the Code ineffective. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, any attempt to reduce the pendency or encourage Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes or to streamline the civil justice system will fail, in the absence of not using the appropriate provisions relating to costs, as the same should discourage maintaining false and vexatious litigations.
Ashok Kumar Mittal vs Ram Kumar Gupta & Anr on 9 January, 2009
In Ashok Kumar Mittal v. Ram Kumar Gupta & Anr, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 656, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus: