Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for A. NAWAB JOHN VS V. N. SUBRAMANIYAM...
2012 0 Supreme(SC) 425 : Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 empowers the Court to allow payment of deficient court fee at any stage of the suit, and upon such payment, the document (including a plaint) shall have the same force and effect as if the fee had been paid in the first instance. The Court may exercise this discretion even after the expiry of the limitation period, and the plaint is not rendered invalid merely due to initial deficiency in court fee. The payment of deficit court fee, even after limitation, does not affect the maintainability of the suit, and the suit is treated as pending from the date of presentation. Therefore, the issue of court fee can be decided at the time of judgment after taking all evidence, as the Court has the power to cure the deficiency at any stage.Checking relevance for SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS VS P. R. SRIRAMULU...
Checking relevance for PAZUNDAUNG BAZAAR COMPANY, LIMITED VS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF RANGOON (DEFENDANTS)...
Checking relevance for Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. VS Afcons Gunanusa JV...
Checking relevance for Chandrashekhar VS Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer...
2009 5 Supreme 463 : Yes, the court should frame an issue regarding court fee and decide it at the time of judgment after taking all evidence. The judgment explicitly holds that once the court has determined that claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation, they should not be denied such compensation on the mere technical ground of non-payment of court fees. The court emphasized that an opportunity must be given to the appellants to pay the deficit court fee, and the decision on compensation should not be restricted due to technical defaults. This approach ensures that substantive justice is not defeated by procedural technicalities. The court further directed that the enhanced compensation of Rs.32.10 per sq. ft. shall be paid only if the appellants deposit the requisite court fees within four months from the date of supply of the order, indicating that the court fee issue is to be addressed at the time of final judgment after considering all evidence and the merits of the case.Checking relevance for State Of Maharashtra VS Salvation Army, Western India Territory: Lohana Maha Parishad, A Public Trust...
Checking relevance for AJAYAKUMAR S/o T. SREEENIVASAN ACHARY VS JYOTHI D/o LATE DAMAYANTHI...
2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 398 : No, the issue of court fee and undervaluation of suit cannot be framed and decided at the time of judgment after taking all evidence. According to Section 12(2) and (3) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, the question of undervaluation and deficiency of court fee must be heard and decided by the trial court before evidence is recorded affecting the defendant on the merits of the claim. The court cannot take up such issues at the final stage of the suit, after evidence has been recorded. This is a mandatory preliminary issue that must be addressed prior to proceeding with the merits of the case. The appellate court may only intervene if the issue involves pecuniary jurisdiction or a bona fide omission, and even then, it must adjudicate the matter directly rather than remand it for determination.Checking relevance for Ambe Public School VS State Of Gujarat...
Checking relevance for Tayeb Uddin Ahmed @ Tayeb Ali VS Kazimuddin And Ors. S/o Late Akram Ali...
2022 0 Supreme(Gau) 927 : The legal documents clarify that whether proper court fee is paid on a plaint is primarily a question between the plaintiff and the State, not a matter that can be used by the defendant to obstruct the trial. The courts have held that the adequacy of court fees is not a ground for the defendant to feel aggrieved or to invoke revisional jurisdiction. In this case, the First Appellate Court directed the plaintiff to pay court fees based on the valuation of the subject matter, and the higher court observed that such issues can be cured by payment within a reasonable time (e.g., three months), as per precedent in J. Vasanthi v. N. Ramani Kanthammal. Therefore, the issue of court fee should not be decided at the time of judgment after taking all evidence; instead, it is a procedural matter that can be addressed separately and remedied through payment, without affecting the merits of the suit.Checking relevance for Tejendra Singh Bindra VS Narendra Singh...
2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 2822 : The court held that the final assessment of market value of the property for court fee purposes can be made after recording evidence of both parties. It emphasized that while parties may assess the valuation of suit properties for court fee purposes either on the plaint or counter claim, the assessment remains subject to determination by the court and can be corrected if found prima facie undervalued. The final determination of market value, including whether the valuation is proper, is to be decided by the trial court after evidence is recorded, and thus the issue of court fees should be decided at the time of judgment after taking all evidence.
