Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.78 seconds)The Slum Areas (Improvement And Clearance) Act, 1956
Maharashtra Court-fees Act.
Nagin Mansukhlal Dagli vs Haribhai Manibhai Patel on 8 February, 1979
[Emphasis supplied]
The learned Single Judge observed that one of the objects of the suit in the said case was to prevent the loss which was capable of being estimated in monetary value. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 further relied upon the Judgment in the case of Nagin Mansukhlal Daoli v. Haribhai Manibhai Patel where the Court was required to decide the question with respect to the jurisdiction and the plaintiff in the said case was a monthly tenant of a flat on the ground floor of a building belonging to Ashok Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited situated at 10th North-South Road, Juhu-Vile Parle Development Scheme, Bombay-400056 and, in the said suit, itwas averred that the Leave and License was granted to the defendant and the same came to an end by afflux of time and, therefore, it was alleged that the defendant's occupation of the suit premises since then has become wrongful and illegal and that he has become a trespasser and, therefore, the plaintiff has sought to recover the vacant possession. In the light of the said facts, the Division Bench observed that the declaration sought does not change the real nature of the suit. In para 10 of the said Judgment, Division Bench observed as under:--
Gulam Mohamed Yunus And Anr. vs Lalchand Chelaram And Ors. on 27 February, 1976
Therefore, in my view, in the said case, the Full Bench was not required to consider whether the questions fall in Section 6(iv)(d) or Section 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act. The ratio of the said judgment, in my view, would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
The Court-fees Act, 1870
Maria Philomina Pereira vs M/S. Rodrigues Construction A ... on 19 February, 1990
and Ors.] and in [ Maria Philomina Pereira v. Rodrigues Construction].
Ratilal Manilal vs Chandulal Chhotalal on 24 September, 1946
There cannot be any dispute regarding the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Manilal's case (supra) which was decided an 24th September) 1946. However, again the question before the Court was not whether the subject matter was susceptible to the monetary evaluation or not. Therefore, in my view, the ratio of the said judgment will not be applicable to the facts of the present case.