Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.24 seconds)Section 149 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Court Fees in Delhi
Mannan Lal vs Mst. Chhotaka Bibi on 10 April, 1970
In Mannan
Lal (supra), the Supreme Court held that Section 149 CPC mitigates
the rigor of Section 4 of Act 1870 and Courts should harmonize
the two provisions and allow the deficit to be made good within the
period fixed by the Court. In view of the aforesaid principles
elucidated by the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this
Court, it can hardly be argued by the Defendant that no permission
ought to have been granted by the Trial Court to the Plaintiff to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMAL KUMARC.R.P. 200/2019 Page 11 of 13
Signing Date:13.06.2023
12:43:58
Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:4163
make good the court fee and the plaint ought to be rejected at the
threshold.
Section 4 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
S. Wajid Ali vs Mt. Isar Bano Urf Isar Fatma on 26 September, 1950
Insofar as the judgment in
Syed Wajid Ali (supra) is concerned, the proposition of law laid down
therein can hardly be disputed that discretion must be exercised
judiciously. In the present case, this Court finds that there is no
infirmity in the order of the Trial Court in taking the court fee on
record on the ground that initially the Plaintiff was unable to withdraw
the money from the Bank on account of demonetization and
subsequently when the money was withdrawn and given to the
counsel he had to suddenly rush to his native place. Both the causes
were beyond the control of the Plaintiff and refusal to extend the time
in depositing the court fee, as rightly held by the Trial Court, would
have caused injustice to the Plaintiff, if in these facts and
circumstances the plaint would have been rejected.
J.L. Gugnani vs M/S Krishna Estate & Ors. on 21 July, 2011
17. The judgments relied upon by the Defendant in State Bank of
India (supra) and J.L. Gugnani (supra) would not inure to the
advantage of the Defendant in view of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in P.K. Palanisamy (supra) laying down that payment of court
fee within the extended time would relate back and would be treated
as having been filed in the first instance.
Sahara India Airlines Ltd. vs R.A. Singh on 24 September, 1997
17. The judgments relied upon by the Defendant in State Bank of
India (supra) and J.L. Gugnani (supra) would not inure to the
advantage of the Defendant in view of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in P.K. Palanisamy (supra) laying down that payment of court
fee within the extended time would relate back and would be treated
as having been filed in the first instance.
Mangal Sen vs Union Of India on 20 May, 1969
In other words a
Signature Not Verified suit cannot be tried without payment of the prescribed court fee. It
Signed By:KAMAL KUMARC.R.P. 200/2019 Page 6 of 13
Signing Date:13.06.2023
12:43:58
Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:4163
was held by a Division Bench of this court in Mangal Sen v. Union of
India, AIR 1970 Delhi 44 (1), that before a document can be filed in
the High Court it must bear the court fee chargeable within the First
Schedule or Second Schedule of the Court Fees Act. Of course as
envisaged in the proviso to Order VII Rule 11 time for making up the
deficiency in court fee can be extended by the Court subject to
limitations contained in the proviso. But that provision does not
envisage an order that the payment of court fee be exempted and
court fee may be deducted out of the decretal amount in the event of
the success of the plaintiff which means that the suit proceeds to trial
and to final decision without payment of the prescribed court fee.
Buta Singh (Dead) By L.Rs vs Union Of India on 17 April, 1995
17. This provision is meant to give temporary relief to a plaintiff
where for no fault of his, he is unable to affix the required court fee
on the plaint. This may be on account of paucity of time in obtaining
the requisite court fee, closure of the treasury where the court fees is
available, on account of some unforeseen reason, nonavailability of
the requisite amount of court fee in the treasury etc. etc. This
provision does not clothe the Court with the power to exempt
payment of court fee. Further, the power under Section 149 C.P.C.
cannot be exercised contrary to the specific mandate contained in
the Court Fees Act and Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. Section 149 is a
sort of transitory provision to take care of an interim period. In the
present case the reason for not paying the prescribed court fee as
given by the plaintiffs is their inability to pay the same on account of
paucity of funds or lack of means. It was held in Buta Singh v. UOI,
(1995) 5 SCC 284(3) that "mere poverty or ignorance or inability to
pay the court fee at the time of presenting the appeal is not always a
good ground for indulgence under Section 149".