MOHAMMED AHMED ANSARI, P.CHANDRA REDDY
In Re: Dandamudi Sarojini Devi – Appellant
Versus
. – Respondent
( 2 ) THE counsel for the petitioner has argued before me that the first appeal filed by him was not numbered or heard by this Court, that the memorandum of appeal has been stamped with the court-fee, that the court-fee stamps have been defaced by the High Court office in the usual course of routine and that his purpose in filing this petition is to get a certificate so that he can approach the Government with that certificate for refund of the money which he had invested on the stamps less deduction at the rate of one anna in the rupee. For this he relies upon the decision in Nagaratnam, In re, 1950-1 Mad LJ 222 : (AIR 1950 Mad 629), where Panchapakesa Aiyar, J. , has pointed out that there could possibly be no objection by courts to grant such certificates.
( 3 ) THE Government Pleader opposes the application on the ground that the adoption of the same procedure adopted by Panchapakesa Iyer J. in that decision tantamount in effect to the refund of the court-fee and that such a course is not possib
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.