Back
1970 Supreme(Bom) 63
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
R.M. Kantawala, J.
R. Jaikrishna Co..... Plaintiffs.
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay another.... Defendants.
Chamber Summons in S.C. Suit No. 821 of 1968, decided on 14-4-1970.
Advocates appeared :
D.R. Dhanuka, for plaintiffs.
P.S. Nariman with Mr. Suresh Parikh, for defendant No. 2.
Singhnal, for defendant No. 1.
The court fees payable in a suit are determined by the nature of the relief sought, and if the substantive relief is capable of being valued in terms of prevention of monetary loss, then the suit is governed by Article 7 of Schedule 1 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, and not by section 6(iv)(j) of the Act.
Headnote:
COURT FEES - SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION - SUBJECT MATTER NOT SUSCEPTIBLE OF MONETARY EVALUATION - COURT FEES ACT, 1959, SECTION 6(IV)(J), ARTICLE 7 OF SCHEDULE 1 - MAHARASHTRA ACT IX OF 1970, SECTION 6(2)(C) - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a declaration that a notice issued by the Municipal Corporation to demolish certain structures was null and void, and an injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the notice. The plaintiffs paid a fixed court fee of Rs. 30/- under section 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, contending that the subject matter of the suit was not susceptible of monetary evaluation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was governed by Article 7 of Schedule 1 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, and not by section 6(iv)(j) of the Act. The court found that the substantive relief sought in the suit was capable of being valued in terms of prevention of monetary loss, as the plaintiffs were seeking to prevent the demolition of structures in which they claimed proprietary interest.
Issues: 1. Whether the subject matter of the suit was susceptible of monetary evaluation for the purpose of determining court fees. 2. Whether the suit was governed by section 6(iv)(j) or Article 7 of Schedule 1 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted section 6(iv)(j) and Article 7 of Schedule 1 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, and held that the provisions of section 6(iv)(j) could not be invoked if the suit was governed by any other specific provision of the Act. The court found that the suit was governed by Article 7, which applied to suits where the substantive relief was capable of being valued in terms of prevention of monetary loss.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiffs' Chamber Summons seeking to transfer the suit to the Bombay City Civil Court under section 6(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Act IX of 1970, as the suit was not governed by section 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959.
2. The material allegations in the plaint can be briefly summarised as under :---
3. "According to the plaintiffs, M/s. Parshurampura Sons Pvt. Ltd., were at the relevant time the owners of an immoveable property situate at Walkeshwar Road, comprising two plots of land bearing Cadestral Survey Nos. 3 and 7 of Malabar Hill Division along with all the structure standing thereon including a main building consisting of a basement, a ground floor and two upper floors and a chawl godown etc. It is case of the plaintiffs that under a registered Indenture of lease dated January 23, 1960 M/s. Parshrampuria Sons Pvt. Ltd. created a lease in favour of the plaintiffs of these properties for a period of 15 years commencing from January 18, 1960 and upon the terms and conditions therein contained. The plaintiffs further allege that pursuance to this lease they are in possession of this property including the bungalow and the structure standing thereon. Portions of this property are sublet by the plaintiffs and portions thereof are used for personal occupation by the partners of the plaintiffs and the members of their family. The plaintiffs further state that the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and A-1 Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. who are the defendant in this suit are since the month of June, 1968 holding out threats to demolish the existing bungalow and also to carry out other demolition work set out in Municipal Notice No. EB. 28/2176/A of 1968-1969 dated May 13, 1968 Ex. C to the Plaint. By this notice, the Executive Engineer of the Bombay Municipal Corporation has contended that the existing old bungalow facing Walkeshwar Road is to be pulled down to the ground level and the land thereof is to be converted into a garden as per the plans approved vide I.C.D. No. EB/2176/A of March 9, 1963, that the existing old building in north east corner which is partly demolished is to be pulled down to the ground level as per the plans approved vide intimation of disapproval referred to above; that the connection passage at the second floor level between the old building leading to the portion of the new building is to be demolished. By this notice issued under section 353 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. Ratanlal Parusrampuria, to whom the notice is addressed, is called upon to comply with the requisition therein contained. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants are threatening to demolish the bungalow and to enforce the said notice dated 31st May, 1968 in utter disregard of the plaintiffs proprietary rights in the property. They distinctly ever that the defendants are not entitled to carry out the demolishing work mentioned in the said notice and that the said notice is totally illegal, null and void, without jurisdiction and ultra vires on the grounds which are enumerated thereafter in para 5 of the plaint, in the first ground they have alleged that this impugned notice has been issued without issuing a show cause notice that the defendants had not given to the plaintiffs any opportunity whatsoever at any time in connection with the purported decision to demolish the said property and carry out the demolition work referred to in the said notice; in ground (b) they alleged that the impugned action of the defendants contravenes the fundamental rights of the plaintiffs guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution of India; It may be stated that the words "impugned action" r
