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

1991 Supreme(MP) 342

B.C.VARMA, R.D.SHUKLA
Chandulal Ghasiram Baradwar – Appellant
Versus
Central Bank Of India – Respondent


ORDER

B.C. Varma, J.

1. The question is about payment of court-fee. The contention has been that in view of Notification No. F9-1-83-B-XXI, dated 1st April, 1983, issued by the State Government, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 35 of the Court-fees Act, 1870, the appellants are entitled to exemption from payment of court-fee on the memorandum of appeal, as their annual income immediately preceding the date of presentation of plaint from all sources did not exceed rupees six thousand and that they are covered by that Notification.

2. By a detailed order passed on 21-11-1990, it has been held that the exemption provided for in that notification is available in court-fee only in plaint and not in appeal. The view has been that a plain reading of that notification indicates that it applies only to plaint and not to appeal. This was because of non-inclusion of 'appeal' within its fold. The non-inclusion of appeal is deliberate and it is not the function of the Court to substitute words in any enactment. It is indeed contrary to all rules of construction to read words into an Act, unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. In B.I.G. Insurance Co. v. Itbar Singh, AIR 1959 SC 1331,




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