Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.40 seconds)
Documents citing Kashi Ram Namdeo Zambro vs State Of Maharashtra on 31 October, 1995

Sambhaji Manaji Chate And Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 22 October, 2002

6. However, on behalf of the respondents, it has been brought to our notice that the respondent-State sought clarification of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kashi Ram Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra (supra) by filing Interim Application No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 3604 of 1982. While disposing the said Interim Application by order dated 10-11-1997, the Apex Court clarified that:
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 15 - V Tehsilramani - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Aurangabad Thr ... vs Bhujangrao Annasaheb Thorat (Patil) ... on 18 September, 2019

10 Now, turning towards the point raised in respect of Court fee, though it has come on record that the reference was filed by the present claimant, only on one rupee Court fee stamp, yet, it was not accepted in full by the reference Court. It is stated that a notice to comply with the deficit Court fee was issued to the claimant on 01.09.1994. However, when Court fee was not deposited within the stipulated time the reference was refused. The said order of refusal of the reference was set aside by this Court in a proper proceeding i.e. Civil Revision Application. It cannot be said to be a fault on the part of the claimant, especially, in the light of decision in Kashi Ram Namdeo vs. State of Maharashtra and Laxmibai and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (supra). When claimant cannot be said to be responsible and thereafter he was agitating his rights before this Court, he cannot be put to peril. Awarding of interest is definitely within the discretion of the Court, but here in this case, the said delay has not been made ::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2019 02:25:53 ::: 8 FA_2959_2018_Jd intentional. Under such circumstance, there is no reason to change the order in respect of grant of interest.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - V V Kankanwadi - Full Document

Sau. Pushpadevi W/O Giridharilal ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through The ... on 25 July, 2003

5. The learned A.G.P. has brought to our notice an order passed by the Apex Court in Kashi Ram Namdeo Zambro vs. State of Maharashtra which clarifies that the judgment in Kashi Ram Namdeos case shall not be construed to mean that it overrides the effect of Article 15 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, in cases where that provision applies.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A P Deshpande - Full Document

Lalbahadur Ram Yadav vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 6 April, 2004

7. Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act provides that any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. It further provides that such an application be made within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award, if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made the award, and in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12, Sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire. Similarly Section 34 of the Act provides that any person aggrieved by the decision of the Collector determining the amount of compensation may, within sixty days from the date of such decision, insofar as it affects him, by written application to the Collector require that the matter be referred by him for determination of the Court as defined in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in its application to the State of Maharashtra, and when any such application is made the provisions of Part III of the said Act shall mutatis mutandis apply to further proceedings in respect thereof. Keeping the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and Section 34 of the Act in view the question requires consideration in the instant petition is whether any person aggrieved is required to pay court fee on an application seeking reference under Section 34 of the Act. The scheme of the provisions of Section 34 of the Act is indubitably pari materia with the scheme of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Moreover, it is also clear that once a reference under Section 34 of the Act is made by the Collector the provisions of Part III shall mutatis mutandis apply to further proceedings in respect thereof. The case of the petitioners is, therefore, squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in Kashi Ram Namdeo Zambro (supra). In that case the reference was made to the Civil Court and during reference proceedings, the counsel appearing for the State raised preliminary objection as to maintainability of the reference which was upheld since requisite court fee was not paid within six weeks from the receipt of the notice of the award, as required under Clause (b) of proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. On appeal, the High Court upheld the contention and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal. While dealing with the appeal by special leave against the decree of Bombay High Court the Apex Court in paragraph 2 of the report held thus :
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - D B Bhosale - Full Document

Laxmibai W/O Ganesh Parke vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2010

On going through the contents of the para 9, as quoted herein above, it is abundantly clear that once the claimants have complied with all essential requisites, the S.L.A.O. is bound to forward the Reference to the Civil Court by giving some time to the petitioners claimants for removing the deficiencies regarding the payment of Court fees either before him or before the Reference court. The learned Division bench in para 10 has further resorted the clarification given by the Apex Court in the case of Kashi Ram (supra) and held that the applicants are required to pay the court fees. However, the same should be remitted/deposited even before the Reference Court and therefore, it is appropriate for the S.L.A.O. to pass conditional order on the application preferred by the claimants and to forward it to the Civil Court. In para 11, the Division Bench has directed the authorities to make reference to the Civil Court and in that case three months time was granted to the petitioners therein to pay the amount of court fees.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S S Shinde - Full Document

Himanshu Udaypuri Gosavi And Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Revenue And ... on 23 September, 2025

Reliance is also placed by learned Advocate on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kashi Ram Namdeo Zambro Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1996) 1 Supreme Court Cases 289 in support of his aforesaid proposition. While interpreting the provisions of Sections 18(1) and 18(2), the Supreme Court has held that the said Act is a self-contained Code and it does not speak of payment of any Court fee and all that it requires is an application to be made within the prescribed limitation period as contemplated.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - M N Jadhav - Full Document

Bhikhabhai vs Special on 7 October, 2010

2. Learned counsel Mr.Motiramani appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned communications were based upon order dated 29.06.2010 of this Court in Special Civil Application No.3493 of 2010 in which only the consent of the party concerned to pay up the Court Fees was recorded. It is submitted that the provisions of the Gujarat Court Fees Act, 2004, were not in consonance with the ratio of the judgment in Kashi Ram Namdeo Zambro v. State of Maharashtra [(1996)1 SCC 289] and therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer had no authority to demand Court Fees from the petitioners.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - D H Waghela - Full Document

Kashi Ram Namdeo Zambro vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 November, 1997

2. Accordingly, it is clarified hereby that the abovesaid judgment in Civil Appeal No. 3604 of 1982 shall not be construed to mean that it overrides the effect of Article 15 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 in cases where that provision applies. We may add that there is no reference to this provision in the said judgment and, therefore, there is no occasion to misconstrue that judgment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chandrikaben Mohanlal Panchal vs Addl. Special Land Acquisitionofficer ... on 16 November, 2009

(Per : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH) Mr GM Amin, learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant will be satisfied if the appellant is granted additional amount of 12% under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the direction given by the trial Court for recovery of deficit Court fee, if any, is deleted, as the said direction is likely to cause some misunderstanding about the appellant's liability to pay Court fee stamp. It is submitted that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Kashiram Namdeo Zambro v. State of Maharashtra, 1996(1) SCC 289, no court fee stamp is required to be paid on the application for reference.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - M S Shah - Full Document
1