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

2004 Supreme(Del) 201

VIKRAMAJIT SEN
SARJIWAN SINGH – Appellant
Versus
DELHI VIDYUT BOARD – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
AVINISH AHLAVAT, Karan Kaushik Yambem, SUNIL AGGARWAL, TANTA SINGH

Vikramajit Sen, J.

( 1 ) THE common question of fact and law which arises in these Petitions is whether the Plaintiff is entitled to file a Plaint in which only an injunction simplicitor has been prayed for in the wake of receiving electricity bills for sundry amounts. In Suit No. 791/1997 the learned Civil Judge has held, after considering a catena of precedents, that it was essential for the Plaintiff to pray for the passing of a declaration holding the electricity bill to be invalid before it could be entitled to pray for the consequential relief of an injunction against the Defendant from taking any steps for the recovery of the amounts claimed in the impugned Bill. On the same conspectus of facts, and appreciation of the law, several References had also been made which will be answered by this judgment.

( 2 ) THE provisions of law which are attracted are found in Section 7 (iv) of the court Fees Act. So far as the Suit Valuation Act is concerned, what is basically enunciated therein is that the relief for the purposes of the valuation of the Suit must also correspond to the valuation for the purposes of the jurisdiction. So far as Section 7 of the Court Fees Act is concerned,









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