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

2003 Supreme(Cal) 559

D.K.SETH, RAJENDRA NATH SINHA
KAMAL SUKLA – Appellant
Versus
KRISHNA ROY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
GOPAL CH.MUKHERJEE, LAKSHMI KANTA PAL

SETH, J.

( 1 ) THE Stamp Reporter in his report has pointed out that there is deficit of Rs. 12,454/- in the payment of Court fees on the Memo of Appeal. It appears that this calculation has been made on the basis of the amendment brought about in the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1870 through the West bengal Court Fees (Amendment) Act, 2002 increasing ad-valorem Court fees. It seems that this view was adopted by the Stamp Reporter on the basis of the decision of this Court in Narayan Chandra Ghosh v. Sm. Probhamoyee Roy Chowdhury and Ors. , 73 CWN 799, by the Learned Single judge relying on the decision of this Court and some other Courts referred to the said decision as pointed out by Mr. Sahoo, learned Counsel who was requested to assist the Court.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, pointed out that the right of appeal is a substantive right, which is determined on the date the proceeding is instituted. The appeal is a continuation of a proceeding and as such, except in respect of matters of procedure, the substantive law as prevailing on the date of the institution of the suit would govern the proceedings even in appeal. According to him, though the





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