SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(SC) 237

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.C.Gupta : P.N.Bhagwati : M.Fazal Ali Syed
Diwan Brothers
Versus
Central Bank Of India Limited
Case No. : 1370 of 1968
Date of Decision : 5/7/76
Advocates Appeared: Dikshit G.W. : Goyal J.P. : Jain S.P. : Mathur O.C. : Misra N. : Rana O.P. : Sanghi G.L.

Advocates:
G.L.SANGHI, G.W.DIKSHIT, J.P.GOYAL, N.MISHRA, O.C.MATHUR, O.P.RANA, S.P.JAIN

Headnote:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 2 - Displaced Persons Act, 1951 - Section 13 - Paid Ad Valorem Court Fees - This is an appeal by special leave against judgment of single judge of high court deciding a court fee matter in connection with memorandum of appeal filed by appellants before high court against a decree passed by tribunal appointed - Appellants had filed an application before tribunal alleging that it was a partnership firm and claimed that an amount by way of refund of security deposits and a sum as commission was due from respondents - Application was tried by tribunal and claim preferred by appellants was ultimately dismissed by tribunal by its decree - Appellants then filed an appeal before high court with a nominal court fee but stamp reporter of high court was of opinion that appellants should have paid ad valorem court fees on total claim preferred by appellants before tribunal which had been disallowed – Held, Plea of appellants was that as decision of tribunal did not amount to a decree as contemplated ad valorem court fees were not payable and appellants were entitled to pay court fees - Stand taken by revenue was that as present appeal was against a decree case of appellants squarely fell within ambit and therefore ad valorem court fees were payable - Matter was taken up by taxing Judge who went into question of law raised before him and after considering some authorities particularly those of high court agreed with stamp reporter and came to conclusion that appellants should pay ad valorem court fees - Taxing Judge accordingly by his order directed appellants to make up deficiency in payment of court fees - It was against this order that appellants filed a petition for special leave to this court which having been granted appeal has now been placed before us for hearing - Order Accordingly.

SYED M.FAZAL ALI,J.

(1) -THIS is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Single Judge of the Allahabad High court deciding a court fee matter in connection with the memorandum of appeal filed by the appellants before the Allahabad High court against a decree passed by the tribunal appointed under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 - hereinafter referred to as the Act. The appellants had filed an application under S. 13 of the Act before the tribunal alleging that it was a partnership firm and claimed that an amount of Rs. 3,50,000.00 by way of refund of security deposits and a sum of Rs. 55,000.00 as commission was due from the respondents. The application was tried by the tribunal and the claim preferred by the appellants was ultimately dismissed by the tribunal by its decree dated 19/05/1965. Additional Civil Judge of Badaun was assigned as the tribunal under the aforesaid Act. The appellants then filed an appeal before the Allahabad High court with a nominal court fee of Rs. 5.00 but the Stamp Reporter of the High court was of the opinion that the appellants should have paid ad valorem court fees on the total claim preferred by the appellants before the tribunal which had been disallowed. The matter was taken up by the Taxing Officer, who, in view of the substantial importance of the point raised, made a reference to the Taxing Judge for deciding the court fee payable on the memorandum of appeal in the instant case. The plea of the appellants was that as the decision of the tribunal did not amount to a decree as contemplated by S. 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ad valorem court fees were not payable and the appellants were entitled to pay court fees as prescribed in Schedule II, Article II of the court Fees Act. The stand taken by the revenue was that as the present appeal was against a decree, the case of the appellants squarely fell within the ambit of S. 4 of the court Fees Act and therefore ad valorem court fees were payable under Schedule I, Article 1 of the court Fees Act. The matter was taken up by the Taxing Judge who went into the question of law raised before him and after considering some authorities, particularly those of the Allahabad High court, agreed with the Stamp Reporter and came to the conclusion that the appellants should pay ad valorem court fees under Schedule I, Article 1 of the court Fees Act. The Taxing Judge accordingly by his order dated October 11, 1965 directed the appellants, to make up the deficiency in the payment of the court fees. It was against this order that the appellants filed a petition for special leave to this court which having been granted the appeal has now been placed before us for hearing.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top