Decide bail petitions uninfluenced by media: SC

 The Supreme Court on Tuesday muffled its anger over media distorting its simple query about CBIs stand in the trial court on the bail pleas of Kanimozhi and four others in the 2G scam case and said the special CBI judge would decide the petitions ignoring the newspaper reports. A bench of Justices G S Singhvi and H L Dattu said,We express our serious anguish over the distorted and misleading versions of the proceedings reported in newspapers,which is most unfortunate and regrettable.There is also an attempt to tarnish the CBI. Someday,they will get into trouble. The reporting in the print media shall not influence the adjudication before the trial court.

Special CBI judge O P Saini had reserved verdict on the bail pleas of DMK MP Kanimozi,Kalaignar TV MD Sharad Kumar,directors of Kusegaon Fruits and Vegetables Asif Balwa and Rajeev Agrawal and film producer Karim Morani and is likely to pronounce the order on November 3. Giving the clarification on CBIs stand on these five bail petitions,additional solicitor general Harin Raval told the bench that though the agency had not opposed their pleas,it had made it clear that the trial court had the inherent discretion in deciding whether or not to grant bail.The bench said no one could possibly question the discretion of the prosecuting agency and the special public prosecutor to make a submission before the trial court.As the bench also reserved its orders on the bail pleas of Unitech Wireless MD Sanjay Chandra,Swan Telecom MD Vinod Goenka and Reliance ADAG executives Gautam Doshi,Surendra Pipara and Hari Nair,Chandras counsel Ram Jethmalani made an unusual request to the court.
================================
(Source-toi)

Increase frivolous litigation cost by 3,000%,says SC

The Supreme Court has suggested a 3,000% increase in the cost imposed on a person indulging in frivolous and vexatious litigation,saying unless it was hiked from Rs 3,000 to Rs 100,000, the system would fail to control false cases being foisted to victimize innocent citizens. A bench of Justices R V Raveendran and A K Patnaik,in a judgment delivered last month but made available on Tuesday said. At present,the courts have virtually given up awarding any compensatory costs as award of such small sum of Rs 3,000 would not make much difference.We are of the view that the ceiling in regard to compensatory costs should be at least Rs 100,000.

It referred to Section 35A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) which provided for compensatory cost in respect of false or vexatious claims or defence.The maximum amount to be levied on a person indulging in false litigation was amended in 1977 from Rs 1,000 to Rs 3,000. Justice Raveendran,who has since retired,expressed dismay at the cost remaining unchanged for the last 34 years and said, Unless the compensatory cost is brought to a realistic level,the present provision authorizing levy of an absurdly small sum by present day standards may,instead of discouraging such litigation,encourage false and vexatious claims.

Times View : We have consistently maintained that the judiciary needs to take a tough stance against frivolous litigation.The observation of SC should go a long way towards curbing the menace,at least as far as individual litigants are concerned. It remains to be seen whether the much stiffer monetary penalty becomes a serious deterrent also for organisations out to earn cheap publicity. If this too fails to rein them in, the court should think in terms of going beyond just monetary fines for dealing with the problem.That step, however, can wait till the current measure has had a fair trial.
=================================
Apex Court wants normal litigation cost as penalty
The bench also did not approve the present day tendency of courts not to award even normal litigation cost,different from exemplary cost,to the litigant who wins a case.Prosecution and defence of cases is a time consuming and costly process. A plaintiff /petitioner /appellant who is driven to the court by the illegal acts of the defendant/ respondent,or denial of a right to which he is entitled,if he succeeds,to be reimbursed of his expenses in accordance with law.

The court said it was talking of normal litigation cost and it should not be calculated on the basis of actual cost of fighting a case.For,a wealthy person may engage five senior advocates with fees running into lakhs of rupees per day and other side cannot be asked to reimburse such astronomical amounts, it said. Appreciating assistance rendered to court by Dr Arun Mohan and Sr advocate A Mariarputham, the bench said there was a misconception among people that the court fees for litigation were high.It said in Supreme Court,the maximum court fee payable was Rs 250, whether it was a suit or a special leave petition. But it said the time had come for courts to ask for fees commensurate with that spent by the courts on highvalue litigation.

Arbitration matters,company matters,tax matters,for example,may involve huge amounts. There is no reason why a nominal fee should be collected in this regard to such cases. While we are not advocat-ing ad valorem fee with reference to value in such matters,at least the fixed fee should be sufficiently high to have some kind of quid pro quo to the cost involved, said Justice Raveendran,who authored the judgment.
========================
(sourcee-toi)