The main legal point established in the judgment is that the levy of ad valorem court-fee under Art. 1 of Sch. I is a fee, constitutionally valid, and does not violate fundamental rights or impose unreasonable restrictions on litigants.

CHANDRASHEKHAR, C. J.

( 1 ) THESE three cases have been referred to this Court under S. 113,c. P. C. As most of the questions referred in them are common, they have been heard together and will be disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) CIVIL Referred Cases Nos. 6 and 7 of 1970 arise out of O. S. Nos. 98 and 99 of 1969 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge at Bangalore City. O. S. No. 98 of 1969 is for recovery of Rs. 40,25,884 together with interest. Under the Karnataka court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the ad valorem court-fee at the rate of 71/2 % on the sum claimed in the suit, would amount to Rs. 3,01,941. 30.

( 3 ) O. S. No. 99 of 1969 for recovery of Rs. 1,12,003. 71. the ad valorem court-fee payable under the Act on this sum would amount to Rs. 8,400. 30.

( 4 ) THE above two suits are by the same plaintiff. He made an application, I. A. No. I under S. 113, C. P. C. In each of the suits, praying that the learned Civil Judge might state a case and refer it to the High Court for its opinion on the question whether the provisions contained in Art. 1 of sch. I to the Act requiring payment of ad valorem fee at a flat rate of Rs. 71/2 % on the amount or the value of the subject-matter of the suit, without any upper limit as to the amount of court-fee, is legal and valid or ultra vires of the Constitution of India.

( 5 ) CIVIL Referred Case No. 4 of 1973 arises out of O. S. No. 1 of 1969 on the file of the additional Civil Judge at Mysore. The suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,20,000. The plaintiff paid a court-fee of Rs. 6,507. 50 under protest and challenged the validity of Art. 1 of Sch. I to the Act. On his application, I. A. No. I, under S. 113 C. P. C. , the learned Civil Judge has stated a case and referred to this Court the question regarding the validity of Art. 1 of Sch. I to the Act.

( 6 ) THE questions referred in C. R. Cs. Nos. , 6 and 7 of 1970 read:-

1. Whether the ad valorem court-fee at a flat rate of 71/2 per cent on the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit and without prescribing any upper limit and without any slab system, prescribed by Art. 1 of Sch. I of the Mysore court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 is a fee or a tax? 2. Whether Art. 1 of Sch. I of the Mysore Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, prescribing payment of as valorem court-fee at a flat rate of 71/2 per cent on the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit and without any upper limit and without any slab system, is illegal and invalid and ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature of Mysore and is beyond the legislative competence of the Mysore State Legislature and is thus hit by the Constitution of india and whether it needs to be struck down as unconstitutional and as an invalid piece of legislation? 3. Whether the prescription of court-fee (ad valorem) as laid down by Art. I of Sch. I of the mysore Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 without prescribing a maximum limit and without the slab system violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (f) and (g)and Art. 31 of the Constitution of India? 4. Whether the levy of court-fee at ad valorem rates by Art. 1 of Sch. I of the Mysore Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 at a flat rate of 71/2 per cent and without prescribing the maximum and without the slab system, denies the right of equal protection of law and equality before law guaranteed under Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and imposes unreasonable restriction on such a right and thus violates Art. 14 of the Constitution of India ?

( 7 ) THE question referred in C. R. C. No. 4 of 1973 reads: whether Art. 1 of Sch. I of the Mysore Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 is invalid and ultra vires as an impost in excess of the powers conferred on the State Legislature ?

( 8 ) IN Civil referred Cases Nos. 6 and 7 of 1970 Sri S. G. Sundaraswamy addressed arguments on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff. His arguments w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document