Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"These defendants further plead that they are put to loss by the delay in making the various payments under the agreements by the plaintiff-bank. In consequence, they have suffered damages. The plaintiff is bound to pay the defendants towards the same. The amount of damages so suffered by these defendants is therefore liable to be equitably set-off against any amount determined to be payable by the defendant to the plaintiff."

5. On the filing of the written statement as aforesaid the plaintiff having again joined-in by urging that on the sum of Rs. 4 lakhs claimed as set-off being actually in the nature of a counter claim, requisite court-fee had to be paid and that there should be an order accordingly. The Court framed two issues in that behalf at issues 5 and 6 as follows :

10. The question now is, whether the claim by the defendants made as it appears, principally for lightening the burden apropos the suit claim, was it a counter claim as held by the Court or was it only a cross-claim yet to fructify into an ascertained sum legally claimable by the defendant. As pointed out earlier the court below has treated the plea for recovery of money by the defendant to be a counterclaim as enjoined under O. 8, R. 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court also held that even otherwise the plea in the written statement if treated as set-off was liable to be taxed under the Court-fees Act since under law there was no difference between legal or an equitable set off. The views of the learned Judge in this behalf are set out in the following paragraphs :

"A written statement pleading a set off or a counter claim, shall be chargeable with fee, in the same manner as a plaint. So, in the Karnataka Court Fees Act, what is liable to be charged is a set off, or a counter claim, claimed in the written statement. So, it does not draw any distinction between a legal set off or an equitable set off. A set off includes legal set off, and equitable set off. When it is not stated in S. 8 of the Court-fees Act, that equitable set off is not chargeable with court-fee, we have to construe that equitable set off is also liable for payment of court-fee, under S. 9 of the Court-fees Act, as in the case of a legal set off.
"A written statement containing a claim of set-off must be regarded as a plaint in regard to such set-off, and must be stamped accordingly. But court-fee is not payable on an equitable set-off, unless it is the subject-matter of a counter claim."

18. Sri. Gunjal, learned Government Pleader urges that there being no difference between a legal and equitable set-off court-fee is liable to be paid even on an equitable set-off. In this connection he relied on a number of decisions which do have taken the view that there is no distinction between legal set-off and an equitable set-off and even if it did exist it matters little in regard to payment of court-fee. But, it seems unnecessary to go into this aspect of the matter and to decide whether irrespective of the nature of the set-off in that whether it is legal or equitable, court-fee is liable to be paid or not. It seems sufficient for the present purpose to rely principally on the provisions of S. 3(4) of the Act and to the concomitant consequence of imparting to expressions occurring under the Act such meaning as ascribed by the Civil Procedure Code. Question principally for consideration herein is of court-fee to be computed and paid under the Aci. In that situation if the Act itself reaches out to the Civil Procedure Code for resolution of any controversy touching an expresion not defined by the Act it then becomes the duty of the Court to ascertain the meaning of that expression from the C.P.C.