New Delhi (IANS): Delhi High Court on Wednesday expressed shock at the behavior of Bollywood actress Juhi Chawla and two other people, who have yet to file Rs 20 lakh [Rs 2 million] the cost imposed on them for their lawsuit challenging 5G wireless network technology.
Judge JR Midha said: “The court is shocked by the conduct of the plaintiffs who do not wish to file the costs free of charge.”
The court made this observation during the hearing of three motions presented by the actor requesting reimbursement of legal costs, waiver of the costs imposed and the replacement of the word “rejected” in the judgment by “rejected”.
Chawla’s attorney, lead attorney Meet Malhotra, after withdrawing the fee waiver request, argued that the costs would be filed within a week or ten days, or that legal remedies would be exercised. The court told the lawyer that it took a lenient stance while imposing a cost of Rs 20 lakh on the applicants and did not initiate contempt proceedings.
“I was shocked… This court took a lenient view and did not find contempt when the case was established… I was totally inclined,” Judge Midha said. Taking a firm stance on the claim, the court added that it certainly has the power to issue contempt.
Chawla’s lawyer clarified that this did not mean that the costs would not be paid. “It’s my instruction that no one said they wouldn’t do it. I saw what happened (in the judgment). I fully understand, ”added the lawyer. Malhotra also withdrew the claim for reimbursement of legal costs.
After hearing the arguments, the High Court allowed Chawla and two other people one week to file Rs 20 lakh in costs.
The court ordered that the third request to dismiss the complaint be filed with Judge Sanjeev Narula after the court costs were filed and scheduled the hearing for a new hearing on July 12.
In June, the High Court dismissed a lawsuit brought by Chawla and others against setting up 5G wireless networks in the country, citing health risks from the technology. The court had imposed a cost of Rs 20 lakh on the applicants. Judge Midha had called the plea “flawed”, “an abuse of process” and had filed a case to “publicize”.