Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing Phipson & Company Ltd. vs Gayco Private Limited on 27 January, 1976

Mr. Sunil Gupta vs M/S Polar Industries Ltd. And Anr. on 10 November, 2009

what stood affixed as court-fee, further held by relying on the judgment of this Court in Phipson and Co. Ltd. v. Gayce Pvt. Ltd., 1976 PLR page 77, that after the judgment had been delivered, the Court has no power to call upon a party or a litigant to pay the deficient Court-fee, even where it is found that the plaintiff was entertained on a deficient court-fee by mistake or inadvertence. Thus this judgment clearly supports the additional submission of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that even if it were to be held that the written statement is exigible to Court-fee, still one the case stood finally disposed of, this Court had no power to call for the alleged deficiency of court-fee to be made good. That brings us to the decision of the Karnataka High Court reported at AIR 1988 Karnataka page 318.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Ravinder Kumar Rishi vs Sushma Rishi on 23 August, 2002

while dealing with a similar office objection by the Registry of this Court, apart from holding on merits that the relief of injunction claimed was independent of the relief of the declaration, and therefore exigible to payment of separate Court fee viz what stood affixed as court fee, further held by the relying on the judgment of this Court in Phipson & Co. Ltd. v. Gayce Pvt. Ltd. 1976 PLR page 77 that after the judgment had been delivered, the Court has no power to call upon a party or a litigant to pay the deficient Court, fee , even where it is found that the plaintiff was entertained on a deficient Court fee by mistake or inadvertence. thus this judgment clearly supports the additional submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that even if it were to be held that the written statement is exigible to court fee, still one the case stood finally disposed of, this Court had no power to call for the alleged deficiency of Court fee to be made good. That brings us to the decision of the Karnataka High Court reported as AIR 1988 Karnatka page 318.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Mr. Sunil Gupta vs M/S Polar Industries Ltd. And Ors. on 6 September, 2010

In support of this, reliance is placed on Phipson & Co. Ltd. vs. Gayco Private Ltd., AIR 1977 Delhi 88, Lal Khosla vs. Randhir Khosla and another, 76 (1998) DLT 953 and Ravinder Kumar Rishi vs. Sushma FAO (OS) No.658/2009 Page 4 of 9 Rishi, 102 (2003) DLT 219. It is contended that the Court after the disposal of the Suit had become functus officio and thus, could not have passed such a direction. It is urged that once the suit is disposed of, the preparation of the decree thereon is a ministerial act and cannot be interdicted by any direction.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - M Gupta - Full Document

Laj Khosla vs Randhir Khosla & Anr. on 28 May, 1998

5. The suit has already been disposed of on the basis of an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, moved by the parties. Learned counsel for the defendant has drawn my attention to a judgement of a Single Judge of this Court in Phipson & Company Ltd. Vs. Gayce Private Limited (1976 PLR 77). While interpreting Section 28 of the Court Fee Act, it has been held that the Court has no power after the judgement has been delivered to call upon a party or a litigant to pay the deficient court fee even if when initially a document or a plaint was entertained by mistake or inadvertence. In this case, I have reached the conclusion that the office objection is not sustainable.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - M Sarin - Full Document
1