Skip to main content

Section 35A CPC - Code of Civil Procedure - Compensatory costs in respect of false or vexatious claims or defenses.

 Section 35A CPC Description

1[Compensatory costs in respect of false or vexatious claims or defenses.


(1) If any suit or other proceedings 2[including an execution proceedings but 3[excluding an appeal or a revision]] any party objects to the claim of defence on the ground that the claim or defence or any part of it is, as against the objector, false or vexatious to the knowledge of the party by whom it has been put forward, and if thereafter, as against the objector, such claim or defence is disallowed, abandoned or withdrawn in whole or in part, the Court, 4[if it so thinks fit] may, after recording its reasons for holding such claim or defence to be false or vexatious, make an Order for the payment the object or by the party by whom such claim or defence has been put forward, of cost by way of compensation.


(2) No Court shall make any such Order for the payment of an amount exceeding 5[three thousand rupees] or exceeding the limits of it pecuniary jurisdiction, whichever amount is less:


Provided that where the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of any Court exercising the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (9 of 1887) 6[or under a corresponding law in force in 7[any part of India to which the said Act does not extend]] and not being a Court constituted 8[under such Act or law], are less than two hundred and fifty rupees, the High Court may empower such Court to award as costs under this section any amount not exceeding two hundred and fifty rupees and not exceeding those limits by more than one hundred rupees:


Provided, further, that the High Court may limit the amount or class of Courts is empowered to award as costs under this Section.


(3) No person against whom an Order has been made under this section shall, by reason thereof, be exempted from any criminal liability in respect of any claim or defence made by him.


(4) The amount of any compensation awarded under this section in respect of a false or vexatious claim or defence shall be taken into account in any subsequent suit for damages or compensation in respect of such claim or defence.]


STATE AMENDMENTS


Uttar Pradesh-(i) For sub-section (1) of section 35 A substitute the following.


"(1) If any suit or other proceedings including proceedings in execution, but not being an appeal or revision, the court finds that the claim or defence or any part thereof is false or vexatious to the knowledge of the party by whom it has been put forward and if such claim or defence or such part is disallowed, abandoned or withdrawn in whole or in part, the court may, after recording its reasons for holding such claim or defence to be false or vexatious, make an Order for the payment to the successful party or costs by way of compensation irrespective of the decisions on other issues in the case".


[Vide U.P. Act No. 24 of 1954, sec. 2 Sch., Item 5, Entry 1 (w.e.f. 30-11-1954)].


(ii) After sub-section (1) insert the following sub-section, namely:-.


"(1-A) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall mutatis mutandis apply to an appeal where the appellate Court confirms the decision of the trial court and the trial court has not awarded or insufficient, compensatory cost under that sub-section.


[Vide U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976, sec. 2 (w.e.f. 1-1-1977)].


1. Section 35A was ins. by Act 9 of 1922, sec. 2, which, under section 1(2) thereof may be brought into force in any State by the State Government on any specified date. It has been so brought into force in Bombay, Bengal, U.P., Punjab, Bihar, C.P., Assam, Orissa and Tamil Nadu.


2. Subs. by Act 66 of 1956, sec. 4, for "not being an appeal" (w.e.f. 1-1-1957).


3. Subs, by Act No. 104 of 1976, sec. 14, for "excluding an appeal" (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).


4. Subs. by Act 66 of 1956, sec. 4 for certain words (w.e.f. 1-1-1957).


5. Subs. by Act No. 104 of 1976, sec. 14 for "one thousand rupees" (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).


6. Ins. by Act 2 of 1951, sec. 7 (w.e.f. 1-4-1951).


7. Subs. by the Adoptation of Laws (No. 2) Order, 1956, for "a Part B State".


8. Ins. by Act 2 of 1951, sec. 7, for "under that Act" (w.e.f. 1-4-1951).


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree