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

1952 Supreme(Bom) 6

CHAGLA, GAJENDRAGADKAR
Karfule Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Arical Daniel Varghese – Respondent


Advocates:
J.H. Pandya with Golwalla and Co., for Petitioner; V.S. Desai, for the State. Cases

Judgement

CHAGLA, C.J. :- This is an application for refund of court-fees. An appeal was preferred to this Court from a decree of the City Civil Court, and the appeal was compromised out of Court. The appellants have now applied for refund of court-fees, and the question is whether we have the jurisdiction to order the refund.

2. Now, the only power of the Court to order a refund of court-fees arises from Ss.13, 14 and 15 of the Court-fees Act, and it is not disputed that the case of the appellant does not fall under any of these three sections. The contention put forward by Mr. Pandya is that we should exercise our inherent power under S.151 of the Civil Procedure Code and order the refund. The refund is sought on the ground that the appeal was withdrawn before it was heard by this Court, and that the judicial machinery which functions when a litigant comes to this Court did not function fully; and, therefore, to put it in substance, the argument is that the court-fees were not earned by Government and it is but just that a part of the court-fees should be refunded. The argument put that way is very attractive; but the question is whether we have the power to order refund under circ





















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