
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 253 (iii) Court Fees 3.22 Much like the existing costs regime, the existing court fees regime also does not deter litigants from filing false and vexatious claims or seeking adjournments to delay the proceedings. Litigants who prolong matters and abuse the Court's process pay the same court fees as litigants who do not indulge in such practices. To remedy the situation, court fees will need to be related to the time consumed by the litigants in the conduct of their case, much like Singapore, as discussed in the previous Chapter. The State Government may, therefore, consider re-examining the court fee regime in light of its legislative domain under Entry 3, List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. |
||||||||||||
![]() |
||||||||||||
![]() |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||||
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |