Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 1523
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Manoj Jain, JJ.
Amit Jain – Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank & Ors. – Respondents
FAO(OS) (COMM) 333 of 2022 & CM APPL. 56240 of 2022
Decided On : 03-05-2023
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Costs and Fees
Headnote
Cost - Setting Aside of Impugned Order - The court set aside the impugned order dated 10.11.2022 to the extent that the cost of Rs.1 lac was imposed upon the appellant, as it was found that the notice was duly served upon the respondent No.1-Bank.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought setting aside of the impugned order dated 10.11.2022 and the cost of Rs.1 lac imposed upon him, specifically challenging the imposition of the cost.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notice was duly served upon the respondent No.1-Bank, and therefore, there was no valid reason to impose the cost upon the appellant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the imposition of the cost of Rs.1 lac upon the appellant and the validity of the impugned order dated 10.11.2022.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the notice was duly served upon the respondent No.1-Bank, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order to the extent of the imposed cost.
Final Decision: The impugned order dated 10.11.2022 was set aside to the extent that the cost of Rs.1 lac was imposed upon the appellant, and the present appeal was disposed of.
Mr. Sumeet Kaul and Ms. Swechcha Mishra, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Mr. Deepak Jain, Mr. K.B. Pradeep, Ms. Anoushka Singh and Ms. Twinkle Gupta, Advocates, for R-1.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. Vide the present appeal, the appellant is seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 10.11.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in I.A. No.15745/2022 and I.A. No.16168/2022.
2. Appellant is further seeking setting aside of cost of Rs.1 lac imposed upon him vide the aforesaid order dated 10.11.2022.
3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that he presses this appeal qua prayer for setting aside impugned order dated 10.11.2022 only to the extent whereby cost of Rs.1 lac was imposed upon the appellant.
4. In para 15 of order dated 23.09.2022, it was recorded that counsel for the plaintiff therein submitted that advance copy had been served upon the counsel appearing on behalf of defendant No.1-Bank in the W.P.(C) 13448/2022 as well as on his email-id of the Bank.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/Bank does not dispute the same and submits the copy of notice was served upon email-id of the Bank.
6. In view of submission of learned counsel for respondent No.1, as admitted by him that copy of notice was duly served upon the respondent No.1-Bank, there was no occasion to impose the cost upon the appellant while passing the impugned order.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.11.2022 is hereby set aside to the extent that whereby the cost of Rs.1 lac was imposed upon the appellant.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the present appeal is disposed of. Pending application also stands disposed of.
