Back
Supreme Court Of India
R.C. LAHOTI, CJI., G.P. MATHUR AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.
N.R. GOVINDARAJAN- Appellant
Versus
V.K. RAJAGOPALAN AND OTHERS - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 204 of 2005,
Decided on January 7, 2005
" Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 14, Rule 2 - T.N. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, Section 12(2) - Deficit court fees -Preliminary issue - The contention that issue as to court fee can be heard and decided as a preliminary legal issue accepted- In terms of Rule 2 Order 14 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as amended by Act 104 of 1976, the issue could be heard and decided as a preliminary issue. [Para 3 ]
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. There is an objection taken in the written statement that the court fee paid by the plaintiff is deficit and the plea deserves to be heard and decided as a preliminary issue in terms of Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees g and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant (the defendant in the trial court) submits that the issue as to court fee can be heard and decided as a preliminary legal issue, inasmuch as the appellant does not propose to adduce any evidence in support of the plea taken in the written statement in this regard. That being the stand taken, we are satisfied that in terms of Rule 2 Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by Act 104 of 1976, the issue could have been heard and decided as a preliminary issue.
4. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The trial court is directed to frame an issue on the question of court fee in terms of the plea raised in the written statement and hear and decide the same as a preliminary issue before proceeding ahead.
5. No order as to costs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
