Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the award of costs:

• Costs must be realistic and practical, not fanciful: The actual realistic cost should correlate with costs that are realistic and practical, rather than referring to whimsical expenditure by parties engaging high-charging lawyers (!) (!) (!) .
• Section 35 is subject to prescribed conditions: Although Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives the Court discretion to award costs, it is subject to conditions and limitations prescribed by rules; therefore, Courts cannot ignore these rules when awarding costs (!) (!) (!) .
• Delhi High Court Rules limit advocate fees: Under Chapter XXIII of the Delhi High Court Rules, advocate's fees must be taxed based on a certificate not exceeding the scale prescribed in the schedule; awarding costs exceeding this scale is contrary to the Rules and Section 35 (!) (!) (!) .
• No provision for "actual costs" currently exists: As the law stands, there is no provision for awarding "actual costs"; Courts cannot award actual costs if the law does not permit it, and awards must be within the limitations prescribed by Section 35 (!) (!) .
• Consent of parties does not override statutory limits: Merely seeking the consent of parties to award litigation expenses as costs does not allow the High Court to adopt a procedure of awarding assumed "actual costs" that violate the prescribed scales (!) (!) .
• High Court order set aside: The impugned order of the High Court levying costs of ₹45,28,000 was set aside as it was unwarranted and contrary to law (!) (!) (!) .
• Direction for exemplary costs: The appellant was directed to pay the costs of the appeal as per Rules plus ₹3,000 as exemplary costs to the respondents (!) (!) .
• Need for rule amendments: The Supreme Court suggested that High Courts amend their rules to provide for "actual realistic costs" (focusing on a realistic normal single fee for advocates) to streamline the process, rather than ignoring existing rules (!) (!) .
• Costs should follow the event: Section 35(2) mandates that where costs do not follow the event, the Court must state reasons in writing; this practice is often neglected (!) (!) .
• Compensatory costs ceiling is inadequate: The current ceiling for compensatory costs under Section 35A (₹3,000) is considered absurdly small and ineffective; it has been suggested that this limit should be increased to at least ₹1,00,000 (!) .
• Arbitration costs also require regulation: In arbitration, costs should be "reasonable" rather than "actual," and fee structures for arbitrators should be disclosed or fixed by the appointing court to prevent exorbitant expenses (!) (!) (!) (!) .