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

1934 Supreme(Mad) 344

S. M. N. R. M. Lakshmanan Chettier – Appellant
Versus
S. Rm. Ar. Ramanathan Chettiar, – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. The question raised in this Civil Revision Petition is whether under Article 1 of Schedule I of the Court-Fees Act as amended a court-fee is payable on the equitable set-off claimed by the defendant in the suit. The principal Subordinate Judge of Devakottai held that a court-fee was payable tentatively. The matter thus comes before us. We are quite unable to see why in reason a written statement or a defence pleading a legal set-off should have to bear a court-fee and one pleading an equitable set-off not be liable to do so also. In the former case the set-off pleaded may be of a very small amount and in the latter case of a very large amount, It is conceded by Mr. Patanjali Sastri that beyond what he suggests as a technicality no reason can possibly be advanced for this distinction between the two classes of set-off. An equitable set-off is a legally recognised one and we fail to see why any distinction should be drawn between that and a legal set-off. The matter is somewhat bare of authority. So far as this High Court is concerned, the only decision since the amendment of the Court-Fees Act is the decision of Sundaram Chetty, J., in Sitarama Aiyar v. Ramanuja Mudaliar

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