Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.23 seconds)The Court Fees Act, 1870
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Tarsem Singh And Others vs Vinod Kumar And Others on 15 July, 2011
In the present case, the trial Court has directed payment of the
SHIVANI GUPTA
2014.12.04 13:43
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
C.R. No. 7866 of 2014 8
court fees and in view of the judgment of the Division Bench in Tarsem
Singh's case (supra), this Court is of the opinion that no fault can be found
in the reasoning given by the Court below.
Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ld.Tr.Dir vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 11 October, 2011
The Apex Court in The Church of Christ Charitable Trust &
Educational Charitable Society, represented by its Chairman vs. M/s
Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its
Chairperson/Managing Trustee 2012 (8) SCC 706 discussed the effect of
Power of Attorney and how the agent derives the right to do things subject
to the limitations in the authority given by placing reliance upon the earlier
judgment of the Apex Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State
of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 656 and it was, accordingly, held that Power of
Attorney, executed under the Power of Attorney Act, 1882, gives the agent a
right to use the name of the Principal, as per the terms and conditions and
can convey title on behalf of the grantor, within the ambit of the deed.
Meenakshi Devi vs Baksar Devi And Ors. on 26 November, 2014
This Court also in C.R. No.
5833 of 2012, Meenakshi Devi vs. Baksar Devi and others decided on
26.11.2014 has taken a similar view and set aside an order where the trial
Court had dismissed the application asking for a direction to the plaintiff to
pay ad valorem court fees.
Section 7 in The Court Fees Act, 1870 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Smt.Santosh Malhan & Anr vs Naina Devi & Ors on 13 January, 2014
The judgment in Santosh Malhan's case (supra) is not
applicable since in the said case, firstly the binding precedent of the
Division Bench was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge
and secondly, perusal of the judgment would go on to show that the revision
was filed by the defendants in that case since the trial Court has dismissed
the application for affixation of court fees. This Court accordingly, in such
circumstances, has held that there was no illegality as such in the order
which would be challenged in the revisional jurisdiction.