Court Fee for SLP (Special Leave Petition) - The Supreme Court has generally held that the payment of court fees for SLPs is mandatory, often requiring ad valorem (value-based) fees depending on the nature of the case. Several references indicate that the courts have emphasized the importance of paying appropriate court fees when filing SLPs before the Supreme Court BALBIR SINGH Vs KRISHANA - Punjab and Haryana, G. Raja Ram VS Government Of A. P. , Law Dept. - Andhra Pradesh.
Payment of Court Fees in Lower Courts and Supreme Court - In cases where disputes arose regarding court fee payment on plaints or cross objections, courts have directed plaintiffs to pay court fees as per the original requirements. The Supreme Court has upheld these directions and emphasized that failure to pay the correct fee can result in dismissal or rejection of the petition or appeal Khirasa VS Shanta alias Geeta - Current Civil Cases, Khirasa S/O. Krishna Kathare VS Shanta Alias Geeta, W/o Janardhansa Sahalagar - Karnataka.
Court Fee and Appeals - Several cases highlight that pending appeals or proceedings in higher courts, including the Supreme Court, do not inhibit the trial or lower court proceedings unless explicitly stated. Also, the Supreme Court's dismissal of SLPs often references the requirement to pay court fees as a condition for maintaining the appeal ANILBABU Vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala.
Specific Case References - The Supreme Court has ruled on issues like the obligation to pay court fees on sale consideration in property disputes, emphasizing that ad valorem fees are payable based on the transaction value BALBIR SINGH Vs KRISHANA - Punjab and Haryana. In some instances, the court has remanded cases to verify the market value and court fee obligations, underscoring the centrality of proper fee payment Kshitij Infraventures Private Limited vs State of Telangana - Telangana, Kshitij Infraventures Private Limited vs State of Telangana - Telangana.
Summary and Conclusion - The main insight is that for filing SLPs before the Supreme Court, the payment of appropriate court fees, typically ad valorem based on the case value, is mandatory. Failure to pay the correct fee can lead to dismissal or rejection of the petition. The courts have consistently upheld the importance of adhering to fee requirements, whether in lower courts or the Supreme Court, and have clarified that pending proceedings do not exempt parties from these obligations.
References: - BALBIR SINGH Vs KRISHANA - Punjab and Haryana - O.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS - Kerala - Khirasa VS Shanta alias Geeta - Current Civil Cases - Khirasa S/O. Krishna Kathare VS Shanta Alias Geeta, W/o Janardhansa Sahalagar - Karnataka - ANILBABU Vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala - G. Raja Ram VS Government Of A. P. , Law Dept. - Andhra Pradesh - Jashkaran Ghorawat VS Dulal Mandal - Gauhati
the KGST Act, given the pending Supreme Court appeals. ... The refund was denied pending various appeals before the Supreme Court. ... 14(1A) of the KGST Act and ordered the refund of additional registration fees to the petitioner with conditions pending the Supreme ... the validity of the provisions is upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. ... But the request for refund made by the petitioner was declined on the basis of Ext.P4 order, informing that the Commissioner ....
However, objections were filed to the cross objections, mainly contending that Court fee was required to be paid as was paid on the plaint. The plaintiffs were directed to pay Court fee. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 33257/2017. ... prayer could be stuck down under the Rule fell for consideration at the hands of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Lal Sathi Vs. ... These judgment....
Findings of Court: Court is in agreement with trial Court in coming to a conclusion that issue of limitation ... seek a declaration in respect of deed of relinquishment, if document is a void document; etc. would arise for decision making - Court ... However, objections were filed to the cross objections, mainly contending that Court fee was required to be paid as was paid on the plaint. The plaintiffs were directed to pay Court fee. Aggrieved, the ....
... ... Findings of Court: ... The Tribunal found that the petitioner voluntarily agreed to the settlement and could not escape its ... ... ... Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner, having voluntarily entered into the settlement, cannot evade its obligations ... The matter was remanded to the trial court solely for verifying the suit schedule property’s market value and court fee. SLP Nos. 13630 of 2005 and 13633 of 2005 were filed before the Supreme#HL_EN....
... ... Findings of Court: ... The Tribunal found that the petitioner voluntarily agreed to the settlement and could not evade its ... ... ... Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner, having voluntarily entered into the settlement, could not escape its ... The matter was remanded to the trial court solely for verifying the suit schedule property’s market value and court fee. SLP Nos. 13630 of 2005 and 13633 of 2005 were filed before the Supreme #HL_ST....
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh v. ... COURT FEES - SUIT FOR CANCELLATION OF SALE DEED - COURT FEE PAYABLE - AD VALOREM COURT FEE ON SALE CONSIDERATION Fact of ... Finding of the Court: The court held that the petitioner is liable to pay ad-valorem Court fee on the amount of sale ... Once the p....
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that since the Supreme Court dismissed the relevant SLP, the petitioner cannot be held ... Interest - Recovery Proceedings - Kerala Revenue Recovery Act - Section 7, Section 34 - The court quashed the demand for interest ... on the additional transport fee, emphasizing the previous rulings and the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme that was not afforded to ... The Government took up the matter before the Supreme Court#HL_END....
and no more - Since it is an interim measure, it has not conferred any right to petitioner to seek writ of mandamus from this Court ... The high Court declined to interfere in the matter. In S. L. P. , the Supreme Court while observing that prospective loss of fee and commercial aspects of the case is gravamen of the petitioner s legal grievance, dismissed slp. ... The observations made by the supreme Court are as under: we fully appreciate the pe....
OS.No.1/2014 pending trial, citing the advanced age of the plaintiff and next friend, who faced delays primarily due to ongoing Supreme ... Court proceedings. ... pending proceedings in a higher court do not inhibit lower court trials unless explicitly stated. ... Against the same, the defendant approached the Supreme Court by filing SLP(C).No.15705/2015 and notice was ordered by the Apex Court in that special leave petition. ... Munsiff c....
fee and on both counts the separate ad valorem Court fee is paid.”- Learned trial court has committed any error of jurisdiction ... The amendment is only to the extent of calculation of court fee which the counter-claimant was required to pay in view of the objection ... - Title Suit – Landlord - recovery of arrear electricity charges - petitioner herein as plaintiff instituted Title Suit in the court ... The plaintiff thereafter appears to have filed an application b....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.