Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.26 seconds)

Balasidhantam And Ors. vs Perumal Chetti, And Ors. on 10 August, 1914

35. Now, by applying the ratio laid down in the above referred judgment, in the case in hand, herein it is a case, the plaintiff paid the Court fee under Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1995 and not under Section 43 of the Court Fee Act. Therefore, being the reason that the plaintiff after calculating the market value, paid the Court fee under Section 30 of the Act, the judgments relied on by the appellants' counsel, would no way affect the case of the plaintiff. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff paid the correct Court fee for the prayer sought for.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1