Litigation: India
(Created page with "{| class="wikitable" |- |colspan="0"|<div style="font-size:100%"> This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content.<br/>You can help by converting...") |
(→Cost of litigation) |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
TIMES NEWS NETWORK | TIMES NEWS NETWORK | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
New Delhi: Efforts of a tenant to hold on to his rented shop by resorting to unwanted litigation proved costly as the Delhi High Court on Thursday directed him to bear all expenses of his landlord in the legal battle by coughing up a whopping Rs 45 lakh. | New Delhi: Efforts of a tenant to hold on to his rented shop by resorting to unwanted litigation proved costly as the Delhi High Court on Thursday directed him to bear all expenses of his landlord in the legal battle by coughing up a whopping Rs 45 lakh. | ||
Revision as of 12:25, 31 January 2014
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. Readers will be able to edit existing articles and post new articles directly |
Cost of litigation
From the archives of The Times of India 2007, 2009
Pay Rs 45L litigation cost, HC tells tenant
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
New Delhi: Efforts of a tenant to hold on to his rented shop by resorting to unwanted litigation proved costly as the Delhi High Court on Thursday directed him to bear all expenses of his landlord in the legal battle by coughing up a whopping Rs 45 lakh.
A bench comprising justices Madan B Lokur and Mukta Gupta took exception to various ‘‘indirect and calculated methods’’ adopted by Sanjeev Kumar Jain to remain in possession of a leased property after losing his case before various judicial forums in the last eight years and directed him to bear the cost incurred by his landlord.
Jain had entered into a tenancy agreement with the Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust in 1986 but on account of some dispute, he had to vacate the premises following a court order in 2003.
‘‘This appeal was persisted with for no apparent good reason. We are left with the impression that the appellant has tried everything possible to somehow or the other hold on to the shop (tenanted property) despite his physical eviction there from,’’ the court said while dismissing the appeal.
The court also took into account the facts that Jain suppressed the material facts by not filing the site plan of the property and claiming himself to be tenant when he was already evicted following a court order.
‘‘All that we need say is that the appellant has little or no regard for the truth which, to say the least, is a little unfortunate,’’ the bench said while dismissing the appeal.
