BRIJ LAL AND SONS vs UNION OF INDIA

Judgment text excerpt

$~65 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 01.04.2026 + FAO(OS) (COMM) 34/2026 BRIJ LAL AND SONS .....Appellant Through: Mr. Tilak Raj Gogia, Appellant in person. versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, Ms. Ankita Bhadouriya and Mr. Fajallu Rehman, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL) CM APPL. 20415/2026 (Early Hearing) 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. 2. The application is disposed of. FAO(OS) (COMM) 34/2026, CM APPL. 11726/2026 3. This Intra-Court appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 11.11.2025 passed in OMP (Comm.) No. 258/2020 titled as “M/s Brijlal & Sons v. Union of India” whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner wherein the petitioner has sought cost of Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRADEEP FAO(OS)(COMM) 34/2026 Page 1 of 3 SHARMA Signing Date:02.04.2026 12:29:32 the proceedings. 4. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the application by stating in paragraph 4 onwards in the following manner:- “4. A perusal of paragraph 'J' shows that the petitioner has only paid a sum of Rs. 55,000/- for the second Award. He has multiplied the said figure of Rs. 55,000 into 13 times and has calculated a figure of Rs. 7,15,000/- 5. On my questioning, it is stated by Mr. Gogia, the petitioner who appears in person that there is no other documentary proof except the payment of Rs. 55,000/-. 6. In the absence of supporting documents, this Court cannot award costs in favour of the petitioner. Additionally, even in the statement of claims filed by the petitioner, no prayer for costs has been made. 7. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.” 5. The subm