PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA
Dinesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Suman Choukse – Respondent
Judgment
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is at the instance of the plaintiff in Civil Suit No.21-A/2013 challenging the order of the trial Court dated 5.9.2013, by which the trial Court has directed the petitioners-plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee.2. In brief, the petitioners had filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction as also declaring the sale deed dated 28.3.2010 and 18.3.2011 as null and void and not binding on the petitioners. In the said suit, the respondents had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. raising an objection that the petitioners are liable to pay the ad valorem court fee as per Section 7(C) of the Court Fee Act and on the failure to pay the ad valorem court fee, the suit be dismissed. The trial Court by the impugned order dated 5.9.2013 has upheld the said objection by allowing the said application, and has directed the petitioners to pay the ad valorem court fee.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the trial Court has committed an error in directing the payment of the ad valorem court fee without appreciating that the power of attorney was got executed by the responde
Ningawwa Vs. Byrappa Shiddappa Hireknrabar and others reported in AIR 1968 SC 956 (Para 6)
Sunil S/o Dev Kumar Radhelia and others Vs. Awadh Narayan and others reported in 2010(4) MPLJ 431
Ambika Prasad and others Vs. Shri Ram Shiromani @ Chandrika reported in 2011(3) MPLJ 184
Kamalkishore and another Vs. Jagannath Prasand and another reported in AIR 2005 MP 221
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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.