Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for P. M. Ashwathanarayana Setty: Lavina Mansions: A. Abdul Rahim Sherif: G. Ramiah: City Municipal Council: State Bank Of India: Bank Of Baroda: S. Mohmood Iqbal: State Of Maharashtra: Prafulla Chandra VS State of Karnataka: State of Karnataka: State of Karnataka: State of Karnataka: State of Karnataka: State Of Rajasthan: State of Karnataka: State of Karnataka: Jyoti Nlkul Jariwala: State of Karnataka...
1988 0 Supreme(SC) 611 : The legal document confirms that court fees can be levied without an upper ceiling limit. Specifically, it discusses the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961, which removed the previous maximum limit of Rs. 7,500 and instead imposed an ad valorem court fee of 5% without any upper limit on the value of the subject-matter in excess of Rs. 5,000. The document also references the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1958, which similarly imposes an ad valorem court fee of Re. 1 per Rs. 10 without prescribing any upper limit. The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of such unlimited court fee provisions and upheld them, indicating that the absence of an upper ceiling does not render the levy invalid under the Constitution.Checking relevance for P. M. ASHWATHANARAYANA SETTY VS State of Karnataka...
1988 0 Supreme(SC) 613 : The legal document confirms that court fees can be levied without an upper ceiling limit in certain cases, particularly under Section 29(1) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, which mandates ad valorem court fees on proceedings for grants of probate and letters of administration without prescribing an upper limit. However, the court has expressed concern over the constitutional impermissibility of unlimited exactions and has recommended rationalization, including the imposition of an upper limit of Rs. 75,000 and progressive, decreasing rates beyond that. This indicates that while such fees may be levied without a statutory upper ceiling, judicial guidance urges the establishment of reasonable limits to ensure access to justice, especially for smaller claims.Checking relevance for State of Uttarakhand VS Kumaon Stone Crusher...
2017 0 Supreme(SC) 1720 : The legal document establishes that court fees cannot be imposed without an upper ceiling limit. Specifically, the court struck down a provision in the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, which imposed ad-valorem court fees for probate and letters of administration without an upper limit, while other suits had a prescribed ceiling of Rs. 15,000. The court held that such a lack of an upper limit was arbitrary and discriminatory, as it created an irrational distinction between litigants without a rational nexus to the objective of the law. This precedent confirms that imposing court fees without an upper ceiling is constitutionally impermissible when it results in disproportionate or arbitrary financial burden compared to other similar proceedings.Checking relevance for Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. VS Afcons Gunanusa JV...
2022 0 Supreme(SC) 878 : The legal document explicitly addresses the question of whether there can be a court fee without an upper ceiling limit. It clarifies that for claims exceeding Rs.20,00,00,000/-, the fee is calculated as Rs.19,87,500/- (the maximum fee under Serial No. 5) plus 0.5% of the amount exceeding Rs.20,00,00,000/-. However, this total fee is subject to a ceiling of Rs.30,00,000/-. The document concludes that the ceiling of Rs.30,00,000/- applies to the entire fee, not in addition to the Rs.19,87,500/-, and that the legislature intended to impose a cap on the total fee. Therefore, there cannot be a court fee without an upper ceiling limit in this context.Checking relevance for BCH ELECTRIC LIMITED VS PRADEEP MEHRA...
2020 0 Supreme(SC) 356 : Under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, there is a statutory ceiling limit on gratuity payments. Section 4(3) of the Act prescribes a maximum limit (initially Rs. 10 lakh, later amended), and employees covered by the Act are entitled to gratuity only up to this ceiling. The court held that for employees covered by the Act, no alternative benefit scheme can override this ceiling unless it provides better terms under Section 4(5) of the Act. However, in this case, the employer''''s scheme did not impose a cap, and due to consistent practice of paying gratuities exceeding the ceiling and earmarking contributions beyond the statutory limit, the court found that the employer had effectively abandoned the ceiling. Thus, the employee was entitled to gratuity without an upper ceiling limit under the employer’s more beneficial scheme, but only because the scheme itself had no cap and was consistently applied beyond the statutory limit.
