#cost imposition

Allahabad HC imposes Rs. 1,00,000 cost on District Inspector of Schools (D.I.O.S.) for failing to comply with a judicial remand order, emphasizing strict adherence to court directives. The cost, to be deducted from the official’s salary, underscores the judiciary’s intolerance for administrative misinterpretation of judicial orders, setting a precedent for government authorities.

NCLAT bars challenges to approved resolution plans through frivolous perjury claims, imposing Rs. 25,000 costs on suspended directors attempting to reopen settled insolvency proceedings. The ruling reinforces finality in IBC resolutions and deters abuse of judicial process.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that courts may invoke inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to grant a final opportunity to a tenant to file a written statement in an eviction suit, provided a substantial cost is paid to the plaintiff. This reinforces equitable relief in possession disputes where procedural lapses do not override the right to be heard, especially when possession is at stake.

HP High Court upheld a ₹5 lakh cost on the State for failing to implement a 2016 tribunal order directing retrospective service regularization from 2002 instead of 2006. The court emphasized that final judicial orders cannot be ignored for administrative convenience, setting a precedent for strict enforcement of tribunal directives.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that public authorities cannot be penalized with monetary costs under Section 19(5) of the RTI Act solely for procedural delays; the imposition of costs demands clear evidence of intentional obstruction or mala fide conduct. This sets a critical precedent for accountability, ensuring that public bodies are not unduly punished for administrative bottlenecks absent bad faith.