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

2004 Supreme(Bom) 995

S.C.DHARMADHIKARI
Ramila Rajnikant Kilachand – Appellant
Versus
Harsh Rajnikant Kilachand & others – Respondent


Judgment

DHARMADHIKARI S.C., J.:—This matter is placed before me as registry has raised objection on 5th May, 2004 of Court fees. Office note is that Court fee is required to be paid in view of para 9 of the plaint. However, office has also noted the fact that plaintiff is seeking exemption from payment of Court fees under the policy of Government of Maharashtra and has undertaken to pay the maximum Court fees on the date of filling of the suit. In substance, plaintiff seeks exemption in terms of notification of Government of Maharashtra dated 1st October, 1994 whereunder women litigants are exempted from paying Court fees in certain disputes.

2. Being aggrieved by the office objection, plaintiff seeks directions from the Court.

3. Ms. Sethna appearing for plaintiff invites my attention to Paras 1, 48, 61 and 69 of the plaint as also Prayer Clause (u) at page 76 and contends that suit seeks partition of the properties. The suit is filed by plaintiff in her personal capacity. In her individual capacity, she seeks relief of partition after declaring/determining her share in the properties which are more particularly mentioned in prayer (a) of the plaint. She submits that 1994 notificat






























































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