R.SUBRAMANIAN
L. Rathanchand Sarma – Appellant
Versus
Vinayaka Exports & Imports, Rep. By its Partners, Dr. A. Shanmugasundaram – Respondent
This appeal is placed before me on the note by the Registry regarding maintainability of the claim of the counsel for the appellant that Court Fee payable in an appeal filed against an order rejecting the plaint cannot be the same Court Fee that would be payable if the suit has been disposed of on merits.
2. The appellant had paid Court Fee Rs.5/- along with appeal and the Registry had raised an objection regarding the quantum of the Court Fee payable. The learned counsel for the appellant had made an endorsement claiming that since the Order challenged is only an order made in the application seeking rejection of the plaint it is incapable of valuation and therefore, the Court Fee of Rs.5/- paid along with appeal is correct. The Registry has raised doubts regarding the claim of the counsel on the Court Fee payable. The appeal has been filed against an order rejecting the plaint in a suit for specific performance on the ground that it is barred by limitation.
3. An Application filed by the defendant seeking rejection of the plaint in IA.No.295 of 2012 was allowed by t
Nagabhairava Medhini Devi and others v. Perumalla Kasi Rao and Another
Sehgal Industrial Works v. Tru-Temp Industries and others
M.G. Tipnis v. The Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Union of India, New Delhi and others
Mr. S. Marimuthu v. G. Kumaraswamy and others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.