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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 24070

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Sathish Ninan, P. Krishna Kumar, JJ
T.M.SULEKHA EASSA – Appellant
Versus
P.K.NAZAR – Respondent
RFA NO. 551 OF 2016



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri.Narayana V.B., Shri.C.Sivadas
For the Respondents: Sri.N.M.Madhu, Sri.K.Mohammed Faisal Naha, Smt.C.S.Rajani

Non-payment of court fee leads to rejection of appeal, but court fee paid is refundable under Section 66 of the Court Fee Act.

Headnote:The appeal was rejected due to the non-payment of balance court fee. The relevant statute is Section 66 of the Court Fee Act, which entitles the appellants to a refund of the court fee paid on their memorandum of appeal. The court's determination focused on procedural compliance, underscoring the necessity of adhering to court fee requirements in the appeals process.

Sathish Ninan, J.

Appeal rejected for non-payment of Balance Court Fee. The court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal shall be refunded to the appellants in terms of Section 66 of the C.F Act.

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 Back to top