The Single Judge of the Delhi High Court has refused to intervene in a Writ Petition filed by one of the Judgment Debtor facing a money decree for payment of actual legal costs in a civil suit decided by another Single Judge of the Delhi High Court.
The Writ Petition was filed by one of the partner of Pure Play Sports who alleged misuse of Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015) which was enacted with a view to ensure that parties with suspect conduct and who deliberately sought to lengthen proceedings would be burdened by actual legal costs.
Through the said Writ, the Judgment Debtor sought to challenge the broader issue of evolving objective parameters for calculation of ‘reasonable costs’ under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and also sought directions to be issued to the Taxing Officer of the Delhi High Court to re-calculate the actual legal costs which the Judgment Debtor had been directed to pay.
The petition stems from a Suit filed by Skechers USA Inc., where the footwear giant had sued Pure Play Sports for infringement and passing off over trade dress infringement and passing off of Skechers Slip-in Shoes. The commercial suit was decreed in Skechers’ favour in 2018, following which the Taxing Officer quantified recoverable litigation costs and directed the Judgment Debtor to make good the said litigation costs to the Petitioner.
It is crucial to note that the Delhi High Court in its order disposing off the Writ Petition observed that the said Judgment Debtor had previously challenged the specific taxation order through review proceedings before the Court dealing with execution of the decree and the Delhi High Court vide its order dated 20.08.2018 and judgment dated 14.02.2023 has rejected the challenge to the said imposition of actual legal costs.
Hence, the Delhi High Court refused to intervene and granted leave to the Petitioner to file a substantive representation through the Registrar General putting forth his grievance before the concerned rule making committee.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rahul Ajatshatru, Mr. Utkarsh Joshi, Ms. Kanishka Sharma, Mr. Aryan Arora, Mr. Navneet Kumar Shukla, Advs.
For the Respondents: Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, Standing Counsel with Ms. Gurleen Kaur Waraich, Mr. Kritarth Upadhyay, Mr. Vivek Sharma, Mr. Amulya Dev Mishra Advocates for R1.
Dr. Abhimanyu Chopra with Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocates for R2.
