Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Zenith Lamps And Electricals Ltd. vs The Registrar, High Court And Ors. on 31 March, 1967

Murlimal Santharam And Co. (Madras) ... vs Narsinsingh Ghansham Singh And Ors. on 3 December, 1970

7. It is next contended that even if the High; Court-fees Rules, do not apply, the plaints in these cases will not be governed by the Madras Court-fees Act, and the unamended High Court-fees Rules, inasmuch as they have been struck down by the High Court as unconstitutional. I am unable to accept this contention, because the operation of the ruling reported in Zenith Lamps and Electricals, Ltd. v. The Registrar, High Court, Madras (1968) 1 M.L.J. 37, has been stayed by the Supreme Court so far as third parties like the plaintiffs herein are concerned, in view of the undertaking given by the State to refund any excess Court-fee collected from other litigants, if ultimately the Supreme Court accepts the view of this Court. The resulting position is that the plaintiffs are liable to pay Court-fee upon the amended plaints in accordance with the provisions of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, and Order 2, Rule 1 of the High Court-fees Rules, 1956, with liberty to obtain refund of any excess Court-fee in case the said provisions are struck down by the Supreme Court ultimately.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lady Tanumati Girijaprasad Chinubhai ... vs Spl. Land Acq. Officer on 22 December, 1972

29. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that there was nothing to show on the record as to how much was being spent by the State for rendering services to the claimants in compensation cases arising under the Land Acquisition Act. But this approach, to our mind, is not permissible. The determination of questions arising under the Land Acquisition Act is a part of the several functions performed by the Civil Courts while discharging their function as Civil Courts and if it can be shown by the State, the burden being entirely on the State to show this, that by and large the amount which the claimant is called upon to pay is not exorbitant or wholly disproportionate to the services rendered to him, the State can in meeting the challenge, succeed. However, in the instant case the State has not discharged the burden by putting before us the appropriate figures which would go to show that there is a reasonable broad co-relationship between the amount of court fee paid under Article 15 of the First Schedule of the Bombay Court Fees Act and the services rendered by the State to such applicants as a part of the maintenance of the general machinery for the administration of the civil justice. We agree with the observations of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Zenith Lamps and Electricals Ltd., and Ors.' case (supra) at page 372:
Gujarat High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 1 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 6 November, 1987

It is unnecessary for us to refer to the above details for the reason that no law enacted by the legislature, can be struck down on the ground that it is mala fide and in fact the said ground was rejected by the Division Bench. The amendment was, however, struck down by the Division Bench on other grounds. The reason for doing so are found at pages 415 and 422 of the report. At page 415 of the judgment of the Madras High Court in ZENITH LAMPS v. REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, ILR 1968(1) Madras 247 at 372 in which it had been pointed out to the grossly disproportionate nature of the ad valorem court fee, qua the particular suitor in whose case it ceased to be a fee and became a tax, the Division Bench stated thus:
Karnataka High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Secretary, Government Of Madras, ... vs Zenith Lamp & Electrical Ltd on 10 November, 1972

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SIKRI, C. J.-This appeal, by certificate granted by the High Court, is directed against tin judgment dated March 31, 1967 of the High Court of Madras, in Zenith Lamps and Electricals Ltd. v. The Registrar, High Court, Madras() given in Writ Petition No. 1743 of 1964 (and Writ Petition No. 3891 of 1965). Messrs Zenith Lamps and Electrical Limited, respondent before us and hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, intended to file a suit in the Madras High Court, on the original side, claiming a relief valued at Rs. 2,06,552, against the Revenue. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1743 of 1964 on the question of court-fee payable on the intended suit, praying that the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or other direction order declaring Rule I of the High Court Fees Rules, 1956, and the provisions of the Madras Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (Madras Act XIV of 1955) to be invalid and ultra vires insofar as they relate to the levy of fees on ad valorous scale. It was contended that Rule 1 of the High Court Fees Rules, 1956, was void and ultra vires because the Madras Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (XIV of 1955) which had been applied in these Rules was void and ultra vires. Various reasons were given in the petition for alleging that the impugned Rule was void. It was stated inter alia that there was no justification at all for the increase of court-fees in 1955 and 1956 on the basis of civil (1) I.L.R. [1968] 1 Mad. 247 9 7 6 litigants being made to pay fees covering the expenditure on civil litigation. It was alleged that 'whenever an increase is contemplated, it is for the authority to justify by facts and figures such increase by showing that actual expenditure at the time exceeds the fee income. The petitioner alleged that judged by this test, the increases of 1955 were without any legal or actual jurisdiction." It was further alleged that the State was proceeding on the basis that the court- fees had to compensate the Government both for the cost of civil as well as criminal administration, which was unwarranted. In ground D it was alleged:
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 75 - S M Sikri - Full Document
1