Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (1.66 seconds)The Court-fees Act, 1870
Section 31 in The Court-fees Act, 1870 [Entire Act]
Bibhuti Bhusan Chatterjee vs The State Of Bihar on 6 October, 1959
In the authoritative judgment of the Supreme Court in Bibhooti Bhushan Chatterjee v. State of Bihar where it was held that while interpreting the various Articles of the schedule to the Stamp Act, the plain and clear language of the Articles is to be given effect to, without bothering as to whether the effect of such interpretation is equitable, fair or just.
Laj Khosla vs Randhir Khosla & Anr. on 28 May, 1998
30. This Court in a Single Bench decision reported as 1998 Vol. 76 DLT page 953 (Laj Khosla v. Randhir Khosla and another).
Maharashtra Court-fees Act.
Phipson & Company Ltd. vs Gayco Private Limited on 27 January, 1976
while dealing with a similar office objection by the Registry of this Court, apart from holding on merits that the relief of injunction claimed was independent of the relief of the declaration, and therefore exigible to payment of separate Court fee viz what stood affixed as court fee, further held by the relying on the judgment of this Court in Phipson & Co. Ltd. v. Gayce Pvt. Ltd. 1976 PLR page 77 that after the judgment had been delivered, the Court has no power to call upon a party or a litigant to pay the deficient Court, fee , even where it is found that the plaintiff was entertained on a deficient Court fee by mistake or inadvertence. thus this judgment clearly supports the additional submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that even if it were to be held that the written statement is exigible to court fee, still one the case stood finally disposed of, this Court had no power to call for the alleged deficiency of Court fee to be made good. That brings us to the decision of the Karnataka High Court reported as AIR 1988 Karnatka page 318.