Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Teunon, J., Mookerjee, J.
Surendra Nath Roy Chowdhury & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Girija Nath Roy Choudhury & Ors. - Respondent
Decided On : 30-01-1911
Court-Fees Act - Decree Amendment - Sections 13, 35
Fact of the Case:
This is a Rule for amendment of the decree of the Court in a previous case. The main contentions are regarding the refund of court fees paid on the memorandum of appeal and the inclusion of costs of the lower court in the decree.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the first contention regarding the refund of court fees under Section 13 of the Court-Fees Act to be just and directed the refund of Rs. 285 paid as court fees on the memorandum of appeal. The court also found the second contention regarding the inclusion of lower court costs in the decree to be valid, as the higher court's order was only to allow the appeal with costs, which meant the costs of the High Court appeal, and not the lower court costs.
Issues: 1. Whether an order should have been made under Section 13 of the Court-Fees Act for refund of the fee paid on the memorandum of appeal.2. Whether the decree should have contained a direction for payment of the costs of the Court below by the defendants to the plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 13 of the Court-Fees Act allows for the refund of court fees paid on an appeal that is successful.2. The higher court's order to allow the appeal with costs only meant the costs of the High Court appeal, and not the lower court costs.
Final Decision: The court ordered the amendment of the decree to (1) refund the Rs. 285 paid as court fees on the memorandum of appeal, and (2) remove the direction for the defendants to pay the costs of the plaintiffs in the lower court.
JUDGMENT
1. This is a Rule for amendment of the decree of this Court in Girija Nath Roy Chowdhury v. Svrendra Nath Roy Chowdhury 16 C.L.J. 1 : 16 Ind. Cas. 84. It has been contended, in the first place, that an order ought to have been made u/s 13 of the Court-Fees Act for refund of the fee paid on the memorandum of appeal, to (he then successful appellants and that the amount ought not to have been) entered in the decree so as to throw an unnecessary burden upon the unsuccessful respondents. This contention is obviously just. We, therefore, now make an order u/s 13 of the Court-Fees' Act and direct that Rs. 285 which was paid on account of Court-fees on the memorandum of appeal to this Court by the plaintiffs-appellants be refunded to them, The decree of this Court will be amended by the omission of this sum.
2. It has been contended, in the second place, on behalf of the petitioners that the decree ought not to have contained a direction for payment of the costs of the Court below by the defendants to the plaintiffs. It appears that the suit had been dismissed on a preliminary ground, namely, that it had been improperly framed. Upon appeal, that decision was reversed, and the order of the Court was that the appeal be allowed with costs; that clearly means the costs of the High Court. It has been suggested, however, that the learned Judges intended to allow the then plaintiffs the costs of the original Court as well; such an interpretation is, in our opinion, entirely inadmissible. Thee learned Judges could not have intended to allow to the then appellants the costs of the original Court inclusive of the Court-fees paid on the plaint, irrespective of the manner in which the suit might ultimately terminate. We must, therefore, allow this objection also and direct that the decree be amended by the omission of that portion of it which directs the then respondents to pay the costs of the plaintiffs-appellants in the Court of first instance.
3. There will be no order as to the costs of this Rule.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
