Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)Section 35 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Ashok Kumar Mittal vs Ram Kumar Gupta & Anr on 9 January, 2009
21. Even in the Judgment of the Ram Kumar Gupta
(Supra) which was relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the
plaintiff the Supreme Court did not waive the costs of
₹.2,00,000/- but after validating the imposition of costs
merely directed the payment of cost to State Government
instead of DSLSA.
Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors vs Nirmala Devi & Ors on 4 July, 2011
The Judgment of Ramrameshwari Devi
(Supra) was referred to and its findings was approved by the
Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment
of 'Maria Margardia (supra)' wherein it was held that in
the appropriate circumstances heavy costs may be imposed.
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.
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/.
Sanjeev Kumar Jain vs Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust & Ors on 12 October, 2011
13. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff further submitted, the
same has also been reiterated in the judgment tilted as
'Sanjeev Kumar Jain vs Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust &
Ors, 2011 INSC 755, 2012 ALR 90 480' (para-7) in which
it was held that the order of the High Court awarding heavy
Judgment dated 30.04.2025
RCA DJ No. 103/2024 CNR No.DLCT01-010097-2024 Durgesh Singhal Vs Vishal Gupta & Ors. Page No. 8 of 18
Digitally signed
by SANDEEP
SANDEEP KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes & Ors vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D) Tr.Lrs.& Ors on 21 March, 2012
The Judgment of Ramrameshwari Devi
(Supra) was referred to and its findings was approved by the
Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment
of 'Maria Margardia (supra)' wherein it was held that in
the appropriate circumstances heavy costs may be imposed.