Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.S.SONAK, CJ, RAJESH SHANKAR
Vivek Gaurav S/o Late Rajendra Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction and nature of the writ petition (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. argument against discriminatory court fee provisions (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's consideration of the court fees act amendments (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 17) |
| 4. analysis of discrimination claims under article 14 (Para 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. burden of proof on state for justification (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. hostile discrimination in probate suits (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. precedent supporting petitioner's argument (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 8. final ruling on the unconstitutionality of court fees (Para 34 , 35) |
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Admit.
3. It was pointed out that the respondent Nos. 3 to 11 are proforma parties and they would not be affected, if the impugned provision relating to court fees is struck down.
4. With the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, we proceed to dispose of this writ petition finally.
5. The challenge in this writ petition is to the Constitutional validity of a portion of a Court Fees (Jharkhand Amendment) Act, 2022 to the extent that it provides for no upper ceiling or a maximum limit on
Equal treatment under law is mandated by Article 14; provisions imposing no ceiling on probate court fees violate this principle as they constitute hostile discrimination.
The court ruled that legislative revisions to court fees under the Kerala Finance Act, 2025, are constitutionally valid, reflecting economic necessity and not infringing citizens' right to access jus....
Section 55 of Court Fees Act mandates that every application for probate or letters of administration is to be accompanied by a valuation of estate in the form set forth in Part-1 of schedule III of ....
Court fee on applications for probate and letters of administration must comply strictly with statutory provisions, and deficiencies must be rectified prior to proceeding with appeals.
Damage suit – Valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction and relief has to be same in money suits falling under category 7(i).
The right to appeal is substantive and determined by the law in effect at the original proceeding's initiation, not subject to retrospective fee increases.
Proceedings under Sections 18 and 20 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act are not Suits and ad valorem court fee is not liable to be paid.
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
