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

1969 Supreme(Guj) 84

B.J.DIVAN
INDERLAL PANWARMAL – Appellant
Versus
KHIALDAS SHEWARAM – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: G.M.VIDYARTHI, J.M.ACHARYA, KURESHI HAMID

B. J. DIVAN, J.

( 1 ) THE interesting point which arises in this Civil Revision Application is in connection with the appropriate provision under the Bombay Court-fees Act 1959 which is to be applied to the plaint in the instant case. The petitioner herein is the original plaintiff and he has filed a suit being suit No. 1448 of 1965 in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad. The plaintiff has asked for a declaration that the writing passed by the plaintiff on September 9 1965 in favour of defendant No. 1 is illegal ultra vires null and void ab initio and not binding on the plaintiff and that the same is in operative and ineffective. He has also prayed for the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using in any manner or operating upon the said writing dated September 9 1965 against the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit and paid Rs. 30. 00as Court fee on the plaint. After the suit was filed the question was raised by the office of the City Civil Court as to what was the appropriate Court fee. The learned Registrar of the City Civil Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff must pay Court fees valuing the subject-matter of the suit at Rs. 1




















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