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

2023 Supreme(MP) 98

AMAR NATH KESHARWANI
Giraja Shankar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Company Limited – Respondent


Advocates:
V. P. Shah for appellants.

ORDER

1. Heard on I.A. No.10710 of 2022, an application for ignoring the default of 2.5% Court fee as pointed out by the Registry.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per the provision of the Court Fee (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2012, Court fee ought to be paid 2.5% of the enhanced amount, awarded in the Appeal and not on the amount which is claimed in appeal and Registry of this Court has wrongly raised objection on the proportionate Court fee and demanding 2.5% Court fee on the claimed amount in appeal which is against the spirit of law.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the enhanced amount cannot be determined earlier the judgment, but only after the judgment and only in cases where enhancement is made, then in that case only the Court fee has to be paid and that too on the enhanced amount and in case enhancement is not done, then no Court fee is required to be paid.

4. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the orders passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in MA No.1911 of 2010 (Hemraj and another v. Pradeep & another) decided on 6.11.2012 (Annexure A-2), MA No. 3612 of 2010 (Galiya and others v.

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