Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.38 seconds)
A.S. Mohammed Shareef And Ors. vs Central Bank Of India on 20 April, 2006 cites

State Of Maharashtra vs Mishri Lal Tarachand Lodha Andothers on 15 November, 1963

In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Tarachand Lodha 1964 KLT 115. In the said case, the question arose for the determination was, "Whether the amount of interest decreed for the period subsequent to the institution of a suit comes within the expression 'amount or value of the subject matter in dispute' in Article I of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959". During the course of the judgment, Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have observed that "The Act is a taxing statute and its provisions therefore have to be construed strictly, in favour of the subject litigant". Ultimately held, "18. We therefore hold that the amount of pendente lite interest decreed is not to be included in the 'amount or value of the subject matter in dispute in appeal' for the purposes of Article I of Schedule I of the Act unless the appellant specifically challenges the correctness of the decree for the amount of interest pendente lite independently of the claim to set aside that decree. The appellant here has not specifically challenged the decree in that respect and therefore the High Court is right in holding the memorandum of appeal to be sufficient stamped."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 39 - R Dayal - Full Document
1