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

1980 Supreme(Mad) 93

ISMAIL, RAMANUJAM, RATNAM
Official Receiver, Coimbatore – Appellant
Versus
S. A. Ramaswami Gounder – Respondent


Advocates:
N. Vanchunathan, for Petitioner; Addl. Govt. Pleader, for the State.

Judgement

RAMANUJAM, J. :- This matter has come before the Full Bench on a reference made by a Division Bench consisting of my Lord, the Chief Justice and Ratnam, J. The facts which gave rise to the said order of reference may briefly be set out. The petitioner herein is the 8th respondent in S.A. 1606 of 1963, which was allowed by this court on 28-4-1977. Aggrieved against the said judgement the petitioner purported to file a Letters Patent Appeal before this court on the basis of leave granted by this Court while allowing the second appeal. On the office pointing out that the Letters Patent Appeal is not competent in view of Section 100-A, C.P. Code as amended by Central Act 104 of 1976, the petitioner realised that he cannot maintain the appeal. He then filed the present petition for the refund of court-fee purporting to be under Section 70 of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, and Sec. 151, C.P. Code. Section 70 can have no application to the facts of this case as it could not be said that the court-fee had been paid by mistake or inadvertence. Though Mr. Vanchinathan, learned counsel for the petitioner, concedes this position, he however seeks the grant of a cer































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