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

1958 Supreme(Bom) 184

N.A.MODY
Brindalal and Anr – Appellant
Versus
Gokal and Haflman Ltd – Respondent


JUDGMENT - (1) The point for consideration concerns court-fees. This plaint was presented to the Prothonotary of this Court. the plaint has been made out on papers which bear court-fee stamps of the aggregate value of Rs. 2,360/-. These court-fee stamps bear the imprint thereon "Delhi". This plaint was originally filed in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi, and after certain proceedings in Delhi the same was returned to the plaintiffs for being presented to the proper Court on the ground that that Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Under those circumstances this plaint was thereafter presented in the office of the Prothonotary and the office raised a contention that the plaint could not be accepted and filed in this Court unless proper court-fee had been paid to the office which payment would be made to the office on behalf of the State of Bombay. The only question for determination, therefore , is whether, even on the assumption that the amount of the court-fees paid by way of court-fee stamps to the Delhi Court was the proper amount, such payment is a sufficient compliance with the requirements of the Court-fees Act, 1870. As this point concern











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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top