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

1978 Supreme(Kar) 201

D.M.CHANDRASHEKHAR, K.S.PUTTASWAMY
RAM BHADUR THAKUR AND CO. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent


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 R







































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