Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.26 seconds)
Sant Ram Patel vs Jainul Aabdeen on 25 March, 2022 cites

Smt. Sitrajiya Now Dead (Deletded) ... vs Ram Shiromani on 24 February, 2021

3. Relying upon the principles laid down in the cases of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others 2010 AIR 3308; Ambika Prasad v. Shri Ram Shiromani 2011 (3) MPLJ 184; Shyamacharan Paul and another v. Roopali Promoters and construction and others 2009 (3) MPLJ 691; A. K. Gosh v. Dhruv Kumar Haryani and another 2011 (4) MPLJ 493 and Smt. Israt Jahan v. Rajia Begum and others AIR 2010 MP 36; learned court below vide its order dated 29-08-2018 held that the suit has been filed for declaration, permanent injunction and possession, therefore, Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 is applicable in the present case and the petitioner is required to pay ad valorem court fees i.e. Rs.5,22,132/- @ 12% on valuation of the suit i.e. Rs.43,51,101/-.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - A K Srivastava - Full Document

Manoj Gupta vs Anuradha Gupta on 11 August, 2015

In support of his contention, he cited judgments of this court passed in Sunil Radhelia and others vs. Awadh Narayan and others, ILR (2010) MP 2454 and Manzoor Ahmed and Jaggi Bai and others, LIR (2009) MP 3111 and prayer is made to quash impugned order dated 29-08-2018 (Annexure-P/1) with a further direction to the court below to get the Court Fees of Rs.1,50,000/- instead of Rs.5,22,132/-.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 34 - Full Document

Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs Randhir Singh & Ors on 29 March, 2010

3. Relying upon the principles laid down in the cases of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others 2010 AIR 3308; Ambika Prasad v. Shri Ram Shiromani 2011 (3) MPLJ 184; Shyamacharan Paul and another v. Roopali Promoters and construction and others 2009 (3) MPLJ 691; A. K. Gosh v. Dhruv Kumar Haryani and another 2011 (4) MPLJ 493 and Smt. Israt Jahan v. Rajia Begum and others AIR 2010 MP 36; learned court below vide its order dated 29-08-2018 held that the suit has been filed for declaration, permanent injunction and possession, therefore, Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 is applicable in the present case and the petitioner is required to pay ad valorem court fees i.e. Rs.5,22,132/- @ 12% on valuation of the suit i.e. Rs.43,51,101/-.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 871 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1   2 Next