Costs and Courts
RECENTLY, a petitioner before the Delhi High Court raised the following questions:-
a) Whether a Court has the power ("the jurisdiction") to injunct a party from filing any kind of application?
b) Whether a Court, purportedly acting to check vexatious or frivolous litigation, has the power to impose costs under any provision of law other than in the manner laid out in Section 35-A of the CPC?
Put differently: Whether 'inherent powers' can be claimed to usurp jurisdiction to impose costs for what is allegedly vexatious or frivolous litigation beyond the limit of Rs. 3000 (as laid out in Section 35-A of the CPC), especially in contempt proceedings, in which the maximum fine that can be imposed is Rs. 2,000?
c) Can such costs be 'punitive' in nature i.e. other than 'compensatory' in nature?
d) Can the power to do so be usurped by following a procedure other than that laid out in Section 35-A of the CPC?
e) Can such costs be directed to be paid to a beneficiary other than the opposite party?
f) If such so-called costs be 'punitive' in nature, whether they are, in actual reality, 'costs', or in truth, a 'fine'?
The Delhi High Court delivered its judgement on this writ seeking such vital answers on 5.3.2014, but unfortunately, the High Court declined to give a ruling in a writ petition as the petitioner had the alternate remedy of appeal.