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

1994 Supreme(Pat) 14

G.C.BHARUKA, NARAYAN ROY
Katrina Toppo – Appellant
Versus
Matilda Urain – Respondent


Judgment

1. We have heard Mr. Devi Prasad learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned State Counsel in respect of granting exemption to the petitioner from filing of the court-fee in this case.

2. The petitioner has filed an application seeking exemption from payment of court-fee on the basis of the notification No. S. O. 1207 dated 19th August, 1981 on the ground that she being of Scheduled Caste was entitled to get legal aid. At this very stage we may notice that the notification referred to by the appellant stands superseded by subsequent notification dated 31st October, 1983 which is also to the same effect. But since by that time the Bihar State Weaker Section Legal Aid Act, 1983 had come into force, (hereinafter referred to as the Legal Aid Act only), the notification provided that only such persons will be entitled to remission of court-fee who are receiving legal aid in accordance with Sec. 17 of the Legal Aid Act.

3. In the case of Chanda Nath V/s. Janak Kishore Devi reported in 1992 (1) PLJR 760 keeping in view the object and intendment behind issuance of the said notification and the various provisions of the Legal Aid Act it has been held that:

-----the eligibility




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