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

1931 Supreme(Mad) 103

SUNDARAM CHETTY
T. S. Sitarama Ayyar – Appellant
Versus
G. Ramanuja Mudaliar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Sundaram Chetty, J.

1. The question involved in this petition is whether the defendant-petitioner has to pay the court-fee under Article 1, Sch. 1, Court-fees Act, on the amount of Rs. 2,000, which he has claimed as against the plaintiff in his written statement by way of damages in a suit brought by the plaintiff on a promissory note. The learned District Munsif has disposed of this question, which is not after all free from difficulty, in a single sentence, namely I think the defendant must pay the court-fee due on the set off claimed by him as damages against the plaintiff.

2. It is amazing that he has not chosen to give his reasons for the conclusion arrived at by him. It is therefore difficult to know what reasons were operating on the mind of the learned District Munsif when he passed this order that the court-fee must be paid. This sort of deciding a contested petition should, to say the least, be deprecated. However I had the advantage of the arguments of the learned Counsel on both sides on this question. Order 8, Rule 6, Civil P.C., deals with set-off claimed by a defendant in his written statement. The amount so claimed should be an ascertained sum of money legally


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