Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.28 seconds)The Coinage Act, 2011
Section 7 in The Coinage Act, 2011 [Entire Act]
Smt. Bibbi And Anr. vs Shugan Chand And Ors. on 19 May, 1967
12. To conclude in view of full bench decision in the case of Smt. Bibbi and Anr. v. Shugan Chand and Ors. (supra) a sale deed being a document securing other property within the meaning of Section 7(iv-A) of the Act, a suit for declaration of the sale-deed as null and void squarely falls within the four corners of Section 7(iv-A) and Article 17(iii) of She. II which applies to suits not otherwise provided for in the Act does not come into play.
The Court-fees Act, 1870
Section 7 in The Court-fees Act, 1870 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Coinage Act, 2011 [Entire Act]
Smt. Shefali Roy vs Hero Jaswant Dass And Others on 25 March, 1992
No doubt in the present suit, no consequential relief has been claimed but the relief prayed for squarely falls within the ambit of Section 7(iv-A) and, therefore, Court fees shall be payable upon the market value of the subject matter of the sale deed and the suit shall not be covered by Article 17(iii) of Schedule II. The High Court in the above judgment further observed that the view taken in the case of Smt. Shefali Roy v. Hero Jaswant Das 1992 ALR 831: was not followed by the subsequent division bench ruling in the case of Kailash Chand v. Vth A. C. J. Meerut AIR 1999 Alld.
Chief Inspector Of Stamps, U.P., ... vs Mahanth Laxmi Narain And Ors. on 29 October, 1969
11. The division bench of the Allahabad High Court dealing with some what a similar controversy in the case of Smt. Veena Bahl (deceased) and Ors v. Vishnu Kumar and Ors. 2005 ALJ 3294 considering the entire case law oh the subject including the full bench ruling of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Chief Inspector of Stamps v. Mahant Laxmi Narain held that a suit for declaratory decree in respect of the specified property along with a consequential relief of injunction falls under Section 7(iv)(a) of the Act and, therefore, Article 17(iii) of Schedule II is not attracted.
Smt. Veena Bahl (Deceased) And Ors. vs Vishnu Kumar And Ors. on 16 August, 2005
11. The division bench of the Allahabad High Court dealing with some what a similar controversy in the case of Smt. Veena Bahl (deceased) and Ors v. Vishnu Kumar and Ors. 2005 ALJ 3294 considering the entire case law oh the subject including the full bench ruling of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Chief Inspector of Stamps v. Mahant Laxmi Narain held that a suit for declaratory decree in respect of the specified property along with a consequential relief of injunction falls under Section 7(iv)(a) of the Act and, therefore, Article 17(iii) of Schedule II is not attracted.