ASHOK KUMAR MITTAL versus RAM KUMAR GUPTA & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 125 · Decided: 09-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 1 S.C.R. 125 
'"' 
ASHOK KUMAR MITTAL 
A 
V. 
RAM KUMAR GUPTA & ANR. 
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 30991-92/2008) 
JANUARY 9, 2009 
8 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.) 
COSTS: 
Exemplary costs - Imposition of- Recipient- High Court c 
in an appeal arising out of a suit, imposed costs of Rs. 1 lac 
on each side finding them guilty of false deposition, and 
directed costs to be deposited with High Court Legal Services 
Committee - HELD: Courts should not exceed the limitations 
~ 
placed by CPC in this regard - Principles and practice relating 
0 
to administrative law matters cannot be imported 
mechanically to civil litigation governed by the Code - Levy 
of huge costs in selected matters made payable to legal 
Services Authorities or non-party charitable organizations 
should be avoided -
Though the order of High Court 
E 
imposing costs, in view of ss. 35 and 35-A CPC, may not 
strictly be correct, the same is not interfered with in exercise 
of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution - However, 
.... 
Legal Services Authority of High Court when it receives the 
costs from the parties, shall make over the same to State 
F 
Government - Awarding actual and more realistic costs so 
that it may work as a deterrent to vexatious or luxury litigation 
is a matter that requires urgent attention of Law Commission 
of India - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - ss. 35 and 35-A -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136. 
G 
~ 
In an appeal, the High Court of Delhi, while upholding 
the judgment and decree passed by the trial court 
. dismissing a suit for specific performance of an 
agreement of sale, held that both the sides were guilty of 
125 
H 
126 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A having lied on oath and deserved to be prosecuted. It, 
however, observed that since courts were overburdened 
with litigation, instead of directing prosecution, heavy 
costs should be levied on both sides "to be paid to the 
State which spends money on providing the judicial 
B infrastructure", and imposed exemplary costs of 
Rs.1,00,000/ - to be paid by each side. But, the amounts 
were directed to be deposited with the Delhi High Court 
Legal Services Committee. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed 
the petitions for special leave to appeal. 
c 
Dismissing the petitions, the Court 
HELD:1. On merits, the concurrent findings of the 
trial court and the High Court do not warrant interference 
and therefore, this is not a fit case for grant of leave. [Para 
D 3) (128-F) 
2.1. As regards the costs, courts should not exceed 
or overlook the limitations placed by the Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908 with reference to costs in civil litigation. 
E The principles and practices relating to levy of costs in 
administrative law matters cannot be imported 
mechanically in relation to civil litigation governed by the 
Code. In so far the instant case is concerned, keeping in 
view the provisions of ss. 35 and 35-A of the Code, even 
though the order relating to costs may not strictly be 
F correct, the same is not interfered with, in exercise of 
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 
as the order has not resulted in any injustice. [Para 6 and 
8) (129-G-H; 130-C-D] 
G 
2.2. On the aspect of the recipient of the costs, once 
the High Court held that costs had to be paid to the State, 
it should not have directed payment of the costs to the 
High Court Legal Services Committee, which being a 
statutory authority under the Legal Services Authorities 
H Act, 1987, is not the 'State' that spends money on 
ASHOK KUMAR MITTAL v. RAM KUMAR GUPTA & ANR. 
127 
providing judicial infrastructure. Levy of huge amounts 
A 
as costs in selected cases, made payable to Legal 
Services Authorities, may invite adverse comments and 
evoke hostility to legal services in general. The Court has 
also come across cases of costs being levied and made 
payable to some non-party charitable organizations. Levy B 
of such costs should be avoided. Therefore, the Delhi 
~-
High Court Legal Services Committee when it receives 
the sum of Rs.2 lacs as costs from the parties, shall make 
) 
over the same to the State Government as directed in 
para 38 of the judgment of the High Court. [Para 10 and c 
11] (130-G-H; 131-A-B-E] 
2.3. The present system of levying meagre costs in 
civil matters (or no costs in some matters), no doubt, is 
wholly unsatisfactory and does not act as a deterrent to 
D 
vexatious or luxury litigation born

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.