The value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is the amount determinable for the computation of court fees, as per Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887.

JUDGMENT - P.S. SHAH, J.:---This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiffs challenging the Order dated August 23, 1977, passed by the learned Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court, whereby he held that the plaintiffs suit was not cognizable by the City Court and directed that the plaint be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper Court.

2. The plaintiffs filed the suit contending that they formed a firm in the name and style of Messrs. Shantilal Kunverji, which has nothing to do with the firm in the name and style of "Messrs. Laxmichand Kunverji", who were assessed by the Assessment Collector, Sales Tax, by his two orders dated June 24, 1955, imposing a tax liability of Rs. 15330-13-0 together with the penalty amount of Rs. 13204-3-6, thus making a total of Rs. 285350-6. According to the plaint the plaintiffs have deposited a total amount of Rs. 10475 towards the said dues. The reliefs claimed by the plaintiffss in short were, (a) the refund of Rs. 10475 which were paid by the them to the defendants by reason of the assessment order; (b) a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from enforcing or executing the assessment orders and recovering any amount under the said two assessment orders, and (c) for a declaration that the assessment orders in question were null and void.

3. The learned Judge held that section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act had reference to the amount sought to be recovered when the value for jurisdiction is to be computed and not to the various rates at which the Court fees were payable. In this view of the matter, the learned Judge held that the correct valuation of the plaintiffs claim for the purposes of jurisdiction would be Rs. 28535-0-6, that is total of the amounts claimed under the assessment orders which the plaintiffs seek to challenge in the suit as without jurisdiction.

4. The two relevant provisions with which we are concerned are section 6(iv)(a) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, and section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, section (iv)(a) in so far as material reads as under :

"In suits for declaration to obtain adjudication against recovery of money from the plaintiff, whether the recovery is as land revenue or arrears of land revenue or tax or duty or cess or fees or fine or penalty or under any decree or order of a Court or any certificate or award other than under the Arbitration Act, 1940 (X of 1940), or in any other manner-one fourth or ad valorem fee leviable on the amount sought to be recovered according to the scale prescribed under Article 1 of Schedule I with a minimum fee of fifteen rupees:

Provided ............"

Having regard to these provisions , therefore, so far as prayer (c) in the plaint is concerned, the ad valorem fees would be one-half of the amount of Rs. 28535-0-6 being the amount under the two assessment orders in question. The ad valorem Court-fees, in respect of the said relief would thus come to Rs. 14267-52 P. Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act provides---

"Where in suits other than those referred to in (Clause (d) of paragraph (iv), paragraphs (v), (vi), (vii) and Clause (d) of paragraph (xi) in section 6 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (Bom. Act XXXVI of 1959), Court fees are payable ad valorem under the Bombay Court, Fees Act, 1959) the value as determinable for the computation of Court fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same."

It would be clear from the said provisions of section 8 that in cases falling under section 6(iv)(a) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, the value for the purposes of jurisdiction would be the same as determinable for the computation of Court fees, having regard to the fact that ad valorem Court fees are prescribed under the first proviso to section 6(iv)(a) which is applicable to the facts of this case. It is clear from section 6(iv)(a) that the ad valorem fees regarding the prayers (b) and (c) together of the plaint would be Rs. 14267.52 and not Rs. 28535-06. In view

Click Here to Read the rest of this document