Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)The Court-fees Act, 1870
Ram Das vs Dwarka Das on 27 March, 1930
In this case Kendall J., who was also a party to the decision in the case of Ram Das v. Dwarka Das, (A. I. R. (17) 1930 ALL. 876 : 128 I. C. 763), (ubi supra) appears to have followed the view expressed in that case without making any reference to Article 1, Schedule 1. These are the only two decisions of this Court which, are relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant in which it was observed that no court-fee was payable.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Chakkhan Lal vs Kanhaiya Lal on 15 November, 1922
"It is quite clear from Article 1, Schedule 1, Court-fees Act, that fees must be paid on a set-off, and I agree with the decision in Chhakkhan Lal v. Kanhaiya Lal, A. I. R. (10) 1923 All. 118 : (45 All. 218) that it must be paid on the full amount of the set-off and not only on the amount claimed in excess of that claimed by the plaintiff.
S.M.N.R.M. Lakshmanan Chettier vs S. Rm. Ar. Ramanathan Chettiar, And Anr. on 27 September, 1934
227 ; (210 I. C. 88) where Macklin J., following the decision of the Madras High Court in Lakshmanan Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar, 58 Mad. 338: (A.I.R. (22) 1935 Mad. 115) expressed himself thus :
Sir Hari Shankar Paul, Kt. vs Kedar Nath Saha on 25 April, 1939
To the same effect is the principle laid down in the latest pronouncement of the Federal Court in the case of Hari Sankar Pal v. Anath Nath, 1949 F. L. J. 125: (A.I.R. (36) 1949 F. C. 106). At p. 132 the Court observed :
Buddhoo Lal And Anr. vs Mewa Ram on 26 January, 1921
The learned Judges following the principles laid down by the Bench in the case of Budhoo Lal v. Mewa Ram, 19 A. L. J. 558 : (A.I.R. (8) 1921 ALL. 1 F. B.), held that there was no case which has been decided and dismissed the application on that ground alone. They further went on to observe at page 1007 :
Parma Nand Ram And Ors. vs Thakur Prasad And Anr. on 6 December, 1938
"it has been held in this Court in several cases that an equitable set-off can be claimed even independently of the specific provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (Section III now corresponding to Order 8, Rule 6: Nand Ram v. Ram Prasad, (27 All. 145), and the earlier oases referred to therein. It is not necessary to demand court-fees on this account."
Kamta Chaudhary vs Lal Chandra Mool Pratap Bahadur Pal on 5 April, 1945
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended in the first instance that the question of deficiency of court-fee had already been decided on 18th February 1947 and it was not open to the Court below to reopen that question and in-effect to review the earlier order. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that there is no force in this contention. From the order dated 18th February 1947 it is perfectly clear that the learned Judge there confined his attention to the question whether the defendant was or not liable to pay a court-fee on the amount for which he sought a decree against the plaintiffs. It is further clear that the question subsequently raised viz., whether the defendant was or not liable to pay a court-fee on the total amount which he wanted to set-off against the amount claimed by the plaintiffs was never adverted to on the earlier occasion. The issue regarding the sufficiency of the court-fee was therefore decided by the Court without applying its mind to the question subsequently raised. In these circumstances we do not see how it can be urged that the Court had no power to consider and determine this question. Even if, the application filed by the plaintiffs on 17th March 1947 be looked upon as an application seeking a review of the earlier order passed on 18th February 1947, it seems to us that it would be too much to say that the errors committed could not be corrected subsequently by the Court. This view is in keeping with the principle affirmed by this Court in the case of Kamta Chaudhry, v. Lal Chandra Mool Pratap Bahadur, A.I.R. (32) 1945 ALL. 284: (I.L.R. (1946) ALL. 680).