Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.23 seconds)Section 47 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 35A in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
T. Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & Another on 14 October, 1977
In the case of T. Arivanandam v. T. V. Sathyapal : 1977 (4)
SCC 467, which related to eviction proceedings, the Supreme
Court referring to Section 35-A of the C.P.C has observed as
follows;
Shiv Kumar Sharma vs Santosh Kumari on 18 September, 2007
In the case of Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari
2007 (8) SCC 600 , which arose out of a dispute relating to an
agreement to sell, the Supreme Court has held as follows :
Ashok Kumar Mittal vs Ram Kumar Gupta & Anr on 9 January, 2009
In the case of Ashok Kumar Mittal vs Ram Kumar Gupta &
Anr. : (2009) 2 SCC 659 , the Supreme Court had pointed out that
the present system of levying meagre costs in civil matters (or no
costs in some matters), was unsatisfactory and did act as a deterrent
CMP No.727 of 2021 Page 8 of 13
to vexatious or luxury litigation borne out of ego or greed, or
resorted to as a `buying-time' tactic and that a more realistic
approach relating to costs may be the need of the hour. This Court
had also observed that the question whether we should adopt
suitably, the western models of awarding actual and more realistic
costs is a matter that requires to be debated and that should engage
the attention of Law Commission of India. The relevant portion is
extracted below
"7. One view has been that the provisions of Sections
35 and 35A CPC do not in any way affect the wide
discretion vested in by High Court in exercise of its inherent
power to award costs in the interests of justice in
appropriate civil cases. The more sound view however is
that though award of costs is within the discretion of the
court, it is subject to such conditions and limitations as may
be prescribed and subject to the provisions of any law for
the time being in force; and where the issue is governed and
regulated by Sections 35 and 35A of the Code, there is no
question of exercising inherent power contrary to the
specific provisions of the Code.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sanjeev Kumar Jain vs Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust & Ors on 12 October, 2011
In Sanjeev Kumar Jain vs Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust
& Ors: (2011) 12 SCR 744 : (2012) 1 SCC 455 the cost of Rs
45,28,000/-, awarded in an appeal challenging the order vacating
temporary injunction had been challenged. While reducing the cost
imposed to Rs 3,000/-, the Supreme Court discussed the requirement
for amendment in the relevant rules so that higher cost could be
awarded. The court referred to its earlier decision in Salem Bar
Association where it had been held as follows: