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

2004 Supreme(Bom) 1567

B.P.DHARMADHIKARI
Abdul Gaffar – Appellant
Versus
Niranjan Kumar – Respondent


Advocates:
R. T. Anthony, for Petitioner; N. K. Dwivedi, for Respondents.

ORDER :- Both these Writ Petitions are in fact counter to each other and are filed by original plaintiff as also original defendants challenging the order dated 18-8-2004 by which the learned trial Court has upheld the objection regarding valuation of suit taken by original defendant and has directed the plaintiff to value his suit at Rs. 2,50,000/- by holding that the suit falls under Section 6(iv) (ha) of Bombay Court- Fees Act. In Writ Petition No. 4167 of 2004 the plaintiff contends that his suit falls under residuary clause i.e. Section 6 (iv)(j) and Court-fees of Rs. 200/- paid by him by valuing the suit at Rs.1,000/- is just and proper.

In Writ Petition No. 4505 of 2004 the defendant contends that the suit ought to have been valued at Rs. 28,50,000/- or in any case at Rs. 6,00,000/- and as it is multi- farious suit contemplated by Section 18 of the Bombay Court-Fees Act. Court should have directed payment of Court-fees in relation to both the reliefs claimed by the original plaintiffs. In alternative the defendant has prayed for direction to the trial Court to carry out inquiry into valuation of the suit property and to direct the plaintiff to pay Court fees in accordance wit













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