S. TALAPATRA
Bibhuti Ranjan Das, son of late Santi Ranjan Das – Appellant
Versus
Sunanda Das, daughter of Sri Bibhuti Ranjan Das – Respondent
1. To challenge the order dated 29.06.2017 delivered in Civil. Misc.73 of 2015 by the Judge, Family court, Agartala the petitioner who raised the objection in the trial court that the suit was not properly valued and stamped as per the Court Fees Act, 1870 has contended that in a suit for maintenance and annuities as the court fees has to be paid ad valorem under Section 7(ii) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 specifically provides as under:
“In suits for maintenance and annuities or other sums payable periodically—according to the value of the subject-matter of the suit, and such value shall be deemed to be ten times the amount claimed to be payable for one year.”
2. The respondent, in this petition, instituted the suit under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 to realize the maintenance allowance from the petitioner who is her father.
3. By filing the written objection on 02.05.2017, the petitioner herein (the Opposite Party in that proceeding) has categorically taken stand in the trial court that the suit was not properly valued and stamped as per the Court Fees Act, 1870. The petitioner herein filed an application on 29.06.2017 under Order VI Rul
Darubai versus Shankar Narayan Petil reported in AIR 1974 Bom 215
Thulasikumar Anil Kumar and Another versus Raghavan Nair reported in AIR 1985 Ker 20
Dodiyala Krishnaprasada Rao versus K. Jayasri and Others reported in AIR 1986 AP 126
Purusottam Mahakud versus Smt. Annapurna Mahakud and Another reported in AIR 1997 Ori 73
Jagadish Jugtawat versus Manju Lata and Others reported in (2002) 5 SCC 422
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.