MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Delhi High Court Sets Precedent in Deterring Frivolous Litigation with Landmark Judgment

04 September 2024 10:36 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has delivered a landmark judgment that is poised to set a precedent in deterring frivolous litigation. The judgment, authored by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on July 20, 2023, addresses the pressing issue of baseless claims and meritless cases that burden the judicial system, consuming valuable time and resources.

“Frivolous litigation adds to the figures demonstrating a distorted picture of litigation-related problems.”

The court, cognizant of the adverse effects of frivolous litigation, emphasized the need to establish robust measures to discourage the filing of such cases. Justice Sharma, in the judgment, remarked, “Frivolous litigation not only consumes substantial judicial time but also hinders the court’s ability to effectively adjudicate meritorious disputes.” The court highlighted the significance of the rule of law in addressing this problem and preserving the integrity of the legal process.

The judgment underscored the imposition of costs as a strong deterrent against vexatious, frivolous, and speculative litigations or defenses. It recognized that imposing costs not only acts as a deterrent but also provides an indemnity to the successful litigant for the expenses incurred during the litigation. Justice Sharma emphasized, “The potential liability for costs acts as an incentive for parties to carefully evaluate the merits of their case and approach the court in good faith.”

The court further emphasized that the provision of costs safeguards the interests of genuine litigants and ensures that the limited resources of the court are allocated to matters that are genuine and bona fide. It recognized the need to strike a balance between the right to free access to justice and the need to curb frivolous litigation by imposing penalties on baseless claims.

Justice Sharma expressed hope that the Bar Council of India would actively contribute to addressing the issue of frivolous litigation and supporting the efficient functioning of the judiciary. The judgment serves as a call to explore ways to deal with such litigation-related issues and find appropriate responses through new policies while ongoing legal reforms are underway in the country.

In conclusion, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petitions in question, categorizing them as frivolous and devoid of merit. The court imposed a cost of Rs. 30,000/- on each petitioner. The judgment signifies the court’s commitment to ensuring an efficient judicial process and discouraging the misuse of the legal system for frivolous purposes.

DATE OF DECISION: July 20, 2023

NARESH SHARMA vs    UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Latest Legal News