The courts have noted that unscrupulous litigants may take advantage of the fact that costs are not awarded or only nominally.23 At the same time, high or actual costs are considered to constitute an obstacle to the pursuit of a legal action or defence (and are therefore contrary to public policy). The Law Commission of India (an advisory body to the government and parliament) recommended in a May 201222,24 report that more reasonable costs be granted. However, their recommendation for Section 35A of the CPC regarding false or vexatious cost claims is simply to increase the cost cap from Rs 3,000 to Rs 100,000. This suggests that realistic contributions to costs, particularly in non-commercial disputes, are still a long way off. With that in mind, I was curious to know which aspects of its legal system are similar to those of America and which aspects are different. So I was delighted to speak with Guarav Shanker, a partner at the Gurugram Business Law Chamber in India, to find out what litigation looks like there. With regard to the lis pendens of cases and the overburdened NCLT, a way must be found to deal with cases in a much more appropriate way when it comes to class actions. When it can be argued that a class action lawsuit can damage a brand`s image, will the company expect a lengthy process or opt for private arbitration, as has been perceived as a trend in the West? Third-party financing is the use of non-recourse funds by third parties to pay attorneys` fees and other related litigation costs that can help the party win huge claims from which financiers get a return on investment in accordance with the terms of the contract. With TPF investors already showing interest in financing restructuring applications, it can be said that the beginning of the TPF deal in India has finally arrived. Third-party funding has been considered a legal arrangement in Indian laws and could resolve the funding of large class action lawsuits against large corporations. However, there is no central law or regulation for TPF, and some critical cases are pending before the courts challenging the legality of third-party funding. The concept of legal privilege is set out in sections 126 to 129 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872.
Indian law primarily provides that no lawyer, advocate or litigant may disclose (without the express consent of his client) communications made to him during or for the purpose of his employment. The above-mentioned obligation also applies to the content and conditions of the document of which a lawyer, lawyer or officer becomes aware in the course of or for the purposes of his professional employment. Those obligations continue to exist even after the end of the employment relationship. More pertinently, the rules of the Bar Council of India also expressly prohibit a solicitor from breaching the obligations of legal privilege contained in the Indian Evidence Act 1872. As stated in section 245, the class action does not apply to banking companies. Banks play an important role in an economy and a shareholder cannot bring a class action lawsuit against a bank. Customers can take legal action if they go through consumer law, but not the shareholders of the banking company under company law. Check out these courses that will prepare you for the most advanced legal jobs today and in the immediate future: The necessary consequence of hiring a lawyer above is found in section 129 of the Indian Evidence Act, which protects a client from the obligation to disclose confidential communications with his lawyer in court. unless the client offers to appear as a witness.
The only exception to the above obligation applies to communications to promote an unlawful purpose or to any communication relating to a fact established after the commencement of employment that demonstrates that a crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of the employment of the lawyer, officer, etc. It`s not that the country hasn`t seen many circumstances crying out for high-potential class action lawsuits. But no one prefers to take legal action because of insurmountable obstacles in the path of class actions.