Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (2.52 seconds)
Documents citing Delhi High Court Bar Association & Anr. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 9 October, 2013

Subhashini Malik vs S.K. Gandhi & Ors on 6 September, 2016

106. I do not have the least doubt about the ―correctness‖ of the view taken by the division bench in case of Delhi High Court Bar Association (supra), the said approach having been adopted in similar fact-situation as at hand, against the backdrop of return of the plaint upholding the preliminary objection of non- maintainability of the suit before this court on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, in the case of Mahesh Gupta (supra) by another division bench of this court, rejecting the application for amendment for increase of the valuation, with the following observations :
Delhi High Court Cites 122 - Cited by 12 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Bhupender Singh Bhalla vs Neelu Bhalla @ Neelam Singh on 29 October, 2013

8. So far as the plea regarding the suit having not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction and requisite court fees not paid, this plea is not available to the defendant, pursuant to the latest judgment of this Court in the case of Delhi High Court Bar Association & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., WP (C) No. 4770/2012. Striking down the Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2012 as being unconstitutional, this Court has held:
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 12 - M L Mehta - Full Document

Vikas Singh vs Lieutenant Governor And Ors on 20 January, 2016

12. The senior counsel for the petitioner further contended that Delhi is not a State. Attention in this regard was invited to Section 239-AA(3)(a) as well as to Entry 18 "land, that is to say, right in or over land, land tenures including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents; transfer and alienation of agricultural land; land improvement and agricultural loans; colonization" of List II of the VII Schedule to the Constitution and it was argued that Delhi Fire Service is not a municipality. Attention was also invited to Paras 118 to 120, 123, 127, 130, 132, 135 and 141 of Delhi High Court Bar Association v. GNCTD 203 (2013) DLT 129 (DB).
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 2 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

A. Selvaraj vs Yashoda Devi on 24 April, 2025

24. It is settled that court fees is to be paid as per the relief claim by the plaintiff. No doubt Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act, ============================================================ CS DJ ADJ 16369/16 A. Selvaraj vs. Yashoda Devi Page no. 14 of 44 SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.04.24 16:07:12 +0530 2012 was in force while filing present suit, but during the pendency of present suit Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Delhi High Court bar Association & ANR vs. Government of NCT and ANR 1 has struck down the Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2012 by declaring as invalid and ultravirus to the Constitution. In fact, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has also directed to refund the court fees excess paid by the litigants. Thus, in view thereof this court does not find any merit in the submissions made by the defendant. Hence, this issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
Delhi District Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kerala High Court Advocates ... vs State Of Kerala on 31 October, 2025

17. The Petitioner has placed strong reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi High Court Bar Association. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the present issue is squarely covered by that decision, which comprehensively reviewed the entire body of case law on the subject, including various decisions of Indian and international courts and other relevant materials. The learned counsel also took us through the said decision in detail.
Kerala High Court Cites 74 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ram Kumar Kapur vs Bhushan Kumar Kapur And Ors on 17 September, 2019

4. It appears that plaintiff has calculated the payable court fees as Rs. 2,04,000/- as per Court Fees (Delhi Amended) Act, 2012 which was later on held to be unconstitutional by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Delhi High Courts Bar Association Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi, W.P (C) 4770/2012 dated 09.10.2013. Since plaintiff has valued the plaint for Rs. 50,04,000/-. Therefore the plaintiff has to pay the court fees as per the Court Fees Act, 1870 on the old rates which is Rs. 44,944/-. However, plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs. 13,250/- + Rs. 750/- i.e. Rs. 14,000/- as Court fees.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C.S. No 117/13 vs Mind Shaper Technologies Pvt. Ltd on 31 January, 2015

27. Therefore, the Court fees payable by the plaintiff as calculated in accordance with the rate of Court fees prevalent on 14.05.2013, that is, on the date of filing of suit was only Rs.3700/­ and hence, the plaintiff had paid excess CS No.117/13 17/32 Court fees by affixing Court fee stamps worth Rs.4200/­. It is also pertinent to mention that the said Court Fee Delhi Amendment Act, 2012 is no longer applicable as per the Order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Delhi High Court Bar Association & Anr. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. W.P. (C) No. 4770/2012, dated 09.10.2013 and the Order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the SLP (C) No. 33231/2013 in Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Delhi High Court Bar Association. However, as per the old Court Fee Act, which is now applicable for calculation of the Court fee, the plaintiff was supposed to pay Court fee of Rs.3710.40 and the plaintiff has annexed Court fee stamps in the sum of Rs.4200/­, which is in excess of the Court fee payable by the plaintiff in the present suit. Therefore, the present suit is not liable to be dismissed for any kind of deficiency in payment of Court fees. Hence, the first issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant by arriving at a finding that the plaintiff has annexed proper Court fee with the plaint.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohd Rafat Khan vs M/S Techinfo Solutions Pvt Ltd & Ors. on 13 May, 2019

8. The second prayer prayed by the revisionist is for award of interest on the amount of excess court fees which was directed to be refunded by the impuged judgment. The revisionist filed an application on 10.03.2014, for refund of excess court fees of ₹ 39,950/- in accordance with the Court Fee (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2012, which was struck down by the judgment of this Court dated 09.10.2013 in W.P.(C) 4770/2012 (Delhi High Court Bar Association and Anr. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.). By the impugned judgment, this application was allowed but no interest has been ordered upon the excess court fees.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - P Jalan - Full Document
1   2 Next