904-NMS-1220-15-F4.DOC necessary because the NSE is what it says it is, but if it is truly an organization or an institution that acts in the public interest then this must be demonstrated. The suit and the NSE’s conduct seem to me attempts at deflection and evasion. I also believe this entire action to be a gross abuse of the process of this Court. The NSE seems to have taken it more or less for granted that our Courts are too easily cowed by self-congratulatory assertions and overblown claims of rectitude to even consider refusing their claim. This is an approach that must be deprecated, and there is only one way to do that when dealing with an institution like the NSE. I intend to award costs in two parts. I am aware that as a matter of law, the second of these is one that is normally not done and is perhaps even frowned on. There are, however, in my view exceptional circumstances in which an action that is entirely and deliberately mala fide in its intent ought to receive an award of costs, if nothing else then at least as a matter of conveying to such a Plaintiff that Courts do not view these matters lightly. To any protest that an award of costs is unjustified because these costs represent ‘public funds’, the answer is simply that so do the considerable legal costs and court fees incurred by the NSE. Our Courts are not to be treated as playgrounds for imagined and imaginary slights for those who command considerable resources. 29. There will be an order of costs in the amount of Rs. 1.5 lakhs each in favour of Ms. Dalal and Ms. Basu separately. In addition, the Plaintiff will pay an amount of Rs. 47 lakhs in punitive and exemplary costs payable not to the Defendants but to public causes, viz., in equal parts to the Tata Memorial Hospital and the Masina Hospital, it being made clear that these amounts are to be used only 29 of 30 ::: Uploaded on - 10/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2020 18:08:37 :::