VIKRAMAJIT SEN
SARJIWAN SINGH – Appellant
Versus
DELHI VIDYUT BOARD – Respondent
( 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,
REFERRED TO : Mahant Purushottam Dass and Others v. Har Narain and Others
Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad and Others
Time Properties and Promoters v. Delhi Development Authority
Rampur Distillery and Chemicals Co. Ltd. v. Union of India
Assam State Electricity Board, Guwahati and Others v. Borjalinga Tea Company
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.