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

1999 Supreme(Ker) 524

K.NARAYANA KURUP, T.M.HASSAN PILLAI
Sankunni Somadhan – Appellant
Versus
Vinodhini Amma – Respondent


Judgment :-

T.M. Hassan Pillai, J.

But for the persuasive and forceful argument of the learned counsel Shri. Shaffique, who rendered able and valuable assistance to us in answering the question mooted before us, we would have declined to grant the relief of refund of Court fee prayed for in the C.M.P. repelling the contention canvassed before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which in our considered view is devoid of any force, the S.66 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (for short'the Act') which provides for refund of Court fee as it stands does not bar out the present case from the purview of that Section. At the same time, we appreciate the forthright and candid submission made by counsel for the petitioner while making a fervent plea for refund of Court fee paid that it was on the basis of the wrong legal advice given by her the Court fee of Rs. 10,706/- was paid by the petitioner, though we find no factual or legal basis for giving such a wrong advice. Needless to point out here that Court fee payable in an appeal under S.52 of the Act need be paid by a party who approaches the Court for restoration of the appeal rejected on the ground of delay








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