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

1997 Supreme(MP) 272

D.M.DHARMADHIKARI, DIPAK MISRA, A.K.MATHUR
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Kanti Sharma – Respondent


Advocates:
Smt. Indira Nair for appellant; V.S. Chaudhary for respondents.

ORDER

Mathur, C.J. -- 1. This is a reference made by the Division Bench that in an appeal under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, the court-fee should be paid ad valorem or fixed as required under Article 11 of Schedule-II. The Division Bench of this Court has made reference whether the decision given by the Division Bench in Misc. Appeal No. 165 of 1985 (Mukund Das Maheshwari & another v. Union of India), decided on 3.9.1985, lays down the correct law or not.

The Division Bench has observed that the decision in the case of Mukund Das Maheshwari (supra) runs counter to the decision of Hon. Supreme Court given in the case of C.G. Ghanshamdas & others v. Collector of Madras, AIR 1987 SC 180, and a Single Bench decision of this Court in case of Union of India through the Defence State Officer, M.P. Circle, Jabalpur Cantt. v. University of Saugor & others, 1986 JLJ 543 = 1986 MPLJ 678 and also in Indore Development Authority v. Tarak Singh and others, 1995 JLJ 724 = AIR 1995 SC 1828, wherein the Hon. Supreme Court has approved the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Goverdhandas, 1993 JLJ 280= AIR 1993 MP 70.

2. The brief fac












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