Back
1965 Supreme(All) 167
Allahbad High Court
D.S.MATHUR
Chief Inspector of Stamps, U. P., Allahabad - Appellant
Versus
Vishnu Pratap Sugar Works - Respondent
Decided On : 11/02/1965
Standing Counsel, for Applicant.
Additional court fee under sub-section (iv-A) of S. 7 of the Court Fees Act is not payable in cases where the cancellation or adjudging void of an instrument is sought for on the ground of competency, lack of jurisdiction or title.
Headnote:
COURT FEES ACT - SUIT FOR INJUNCTION - COURT FEE - ADDITIONAL COURT FEE UNDER SUB-SECTION (IV-A) OF S. 7 - INSTRUMENT - SECURING MONEY OR OTHER PROPERTY HAVING SUCH VALUE - ADJUDGING VOID - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, Vishnu Pratap Sugar Works and Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills, filed suits seeking injunctions to restrain the State of Uttar Pradesh from realizing arrears of cane cess and purchase tax. The Chief Inspector of Stamps objected to the sufficiency of the court fee, contending that additional court fee was payable under sub-section (iv-A) of S. 7 of the Court Fees Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the reliefs sought for in the suits were injunctions and not declarations with consequential reliefs. Therefore, court fee was payable under Cl. (b) of sub-section (iv-B) of S. 7 of the Court Fees Act. The court further held that the enactments in question, the U. P. Sugarcane Cess (Validation) Act, 1961 and the U. P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961, were instruments that secured money to the State of Uttar Pradesh. However, the court held that additional court fee under sub-section (iv-A) of S. 7 of the Court Fees Act was not payable in cases where the cancellation or adjudging void of an instrument was sought for on the ground of competency, lack of jurisdiction or title.
Issues: 1. Whether the reliefs sought for in the suits were injunctions or declarations with consequential reliefs. 2. Whether the enactments in question were instruments that secured money to the State of Uttar Pradesh. 3. Whether additional court fee under sub-section (iv-A) of S. 7 of the Court Fees Act was payable in cases where the cancellation or adjudging void of an instrument was sought for on the ground of competency, lack of jurisdiction or title.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the reliefs sought for in the suits were injunctions and not declarations with consequential reliefs. Therefore, court fee was payable under Cl. (b) of sub-section (iv-B) of S. 7 of the Court Fees Act. 2. The court held that the enactments in question, the U. P. Sugarcane Cess (Validation) Act, 1961 and the U. P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961, were instruments that secured money to the State of Uttar Pradesh. 3. The court held that additional court fee under sub-section (iv-A) of S. 7 of the Court Fees Act was not payable in cases where the cancellation or adjudging void of an instrument was sought for on the ground of competency, lack of jurisdiction or title.
Final Decision: The court allowed both revisions and declared that on the basis of complaints, as presented, additional court fee under sub-section (iv-A) of S. 7 of the Court Fees Act was payable. The trial Court was directed to proceed with the hearing of the suits only after the deficit court fee had been made good.
2. The reliefs sought for in the suit instituted by Vishnu Pratap Sugar Works were that the State of Uttar Pradesh, its servants and agents be restrained by a permanent injunction from realising or taking any steps for the realization of the aforementioned sum of Rs. 33,74,754.77 from the plaintiff company as arrears of land revenue or otherwise and, in the alternative the State of Uttar Pradesh be restrained by permanent injunction from realising from the plaintiff company any amount in excess of Rs. 18,000,00 by way of arrears of cane cess and purchase tax for the years 1952 to 1962. The third prayer made, in case none of the above reliefs could be granted was that the Union of India be ordered by injunction to pay the dues of Rs. 33,74,754.77 to the State of Uttar Pradesh. In the suit instituted by Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills the second prayer was not made. The only reliefs sought for were that the State of Uttar Pradesh, its servants and agents be restrained by an order of the Court from realising or taking any steps for the realization of any amount on account of cane cess and purchase tax from the plaintiff and, in the alternative, the Union of India be ordered to pay the amount of Rs. 6.94,327.24 to the State of Uttar Pradesh.
3. The plaintiffs of the two suits paid court-fee as reliefs for injunction. The Chief Inspector of Stamps raised an objection to the sufficiency of the court-fee and when the objections were repelled, the present revisions under S. 6-B of the Court Fees Act were moved.
4. The points which have been urged before me are that the reliefs for injunction amounted to a declaration with a consequential relief and, consequently, court fee was payable under sub-section (iv) (a) of S. 7 of the Court Fees Act. It was further contended that the Act of Parliament, and also of the State Legislature amounted to an instrument and as adjudging void thereof was involved and the Acts secured money or property having such value, additional court fee under sub-section (iv-A) of S. 7 of the Court Fees Act was payable.
5. The first contention has no force. The Court Fees Act by itself makes a provision for a suit for injunction alone. Injunction is invariably not granted unless the plaintiff has a right or title and, in suitable cases, is in possession of the property. To put it differently, no injunction can be granted unless Courts of law adjudicate upon the right or title of the parties. Such adjudication amounts to declaration. Consequently, wherever a relief for injunction is granted, the Courts shall, by implication, grant a declaration and if the contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel is accepted, the provisions of sub-section (iv-B) (b) of S. 7 of the Court Fees Act shall become superfluous.
6. Generally speaking, therefore, wherever in injunction is sought for court fee is payable under Cl. (b) of sub-section (iv-B) of S. 7 of the Court Fees Act. It is in very special circumstances that a relief for injunction may be deemed to amount to a declaration with a consequential relief.
7. In the present suits the relief sought for in the alternative that the Union of India be directed to pay the money to the State of Uttar Pradesh, is a funny one. But considering that the plaintiff is not to benefit by such an order, it will be wrong to say that this sort of injunction amounts to a declaration with a consequential relief. In fact, Courts of law may refuse to go into the rival claims of the defendants Disputes between the defendants, if any, can be adjudicated upon in another proceeding. In these suits it shall merely be considered whether the amount can be recovered from the plaintiff. If it cannot
