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

1958 Supreme(All) 48

V.D.BHARGAVA
DURGA PRASAD – Appellant
Versus
SWAMI AVIDYA NAND GURU SWAMI HAMARATA NAND – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
G.Kumar, N.KUMAR

V. D. BHARGAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 6a of the Court-fees Act.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of the price of stone ballast supplied to the defendant. The defendant in the written statement alleged that the plaintiff failed to supply the stone ballast and, therefore, he suffered a loss of Rs. 13,459/3/ -. He, therefore, claimed a set off. The court demanded court-fee on this set-off. The defendant objected to it. After hearing the parties the civil Judge has asked the defendant to pay ad valorem court fee on Rs. 13,459/ -. Against that order this appeal has been filed.

( 3 ) IT had been contended that by claiming these damages the defendant was actually not claiming his set off but was pleading adjustment. I do not think that this is case of adjustment or payment; but the present case is a case of set-off on the ground of damages suffered on account of non-supply of the stone ballast. If the claim by the plaintiff had been admitted and the amount due from the defendant to the plaintiff had been adjusted in this account, the matter would have been different. But the cause of action of the claim for damages being entirely different it is a clear c





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