Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)
N.A. Siddiqui vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 20 June, 1972 cites

The Vishnu Pratap Sugar Works (P) Ltd vs The Chief Inspector Of Stamps, U.P on 4 May, 1967

6. Sri M. L. Ramakrishna Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, contended that the suit was one for injunction, and it is the provision contained in clause (c) of section 26 of the court-Fees Act that governs the case on hand, and the court-fee, under those circumstances, has to be computed on the amount on which the relief sought for was valued by the plaintiff. The learned counsel further submits that the plaintiff has not asked for any declaration and that if the suit for a mere permanent injunction without declaration cannot be decreed, it must then be dismissed, but as it stands at present, the plaintiff cannot be compelled to pay court-fee as in a suit for declaration. I find considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel. Reliance by the learned counsel was placed, in that context, upon a decision of the Supreme Court in V. P. Sugar Works v. C. I. Stamps, U. P. . In that case, the appellant company filed a suit against the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Union of India, inter alia, praying for a permanent injunction restraining the State of Uttar Pradesh, its servants and agents from realising or from proceeding to realise sugar-cane cess and purchase tax amounting to Rs. 33 lakhs and odd charged under the U. P. Sugar Cane (Regulation of supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 , the Sugar Cane cess act, 1956 read with the U. P. Sugar Cane cess (validation) Act, 1961 and the U. P. Sugar Cane Purchase Tax Act IX of the 1961.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 43 - J M Shelat - Full Document
1   2 Next