COURT FEES ACT, 1870

Ad-valorem Court Fee--Definite case of plaintiff that amount of Rs. 19,41,261.1 is due from defendant although some more amount may also be due--Plaintiff has camouflaged its claim by making prayer for settlement of account only but in fact plaintiff is seeking recovery of amount found due--Plaintiff has to pay ad-volorem Court fee on aforesaid amount.; M/s Maha Singh Ram Mehar Rice & General Mills v. M/s Devi Dyal Amar Nath, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 762
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.149--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.7, R.11(C)--Deficit Court Fee--Plaintiff paid deficit court fee within time granted in first instance by Trial Court as required by Order 7, Rule 11(c)--Plaint could not be rejected on ground of deficit Court fee.; Bikkar Singh v. Jeet Singh, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 748

COURT FEES ACT, 1870

Ad-valorem Court Fee--Definite case of plaintiff that amount of Rs. 19,41,261.1 is due from defendant although some more amount may also be due--Plaintiff has camouflaged its claim by making prayer for settlement of account only but in fact plaintiff is seeking recovery of amount found due--Plaintiff has to pay ad-volorem Court fee on aforesaid amount.; M/s Maha Singh Ram Mehar Rice & General Mills v. M/s Devi Dyal Amar Nath, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 762
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.149--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.7, R.11(C)--Deficit Court Fee--Plaintiff paid deficit court fee within time granted in first instance by Trial Court as required by Order 7, Rule 11(c)--Plaint could not be rejected on ground of deficit Court fee.; Bikkar Singh v. Jeet Singh, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 748

Plaintiff claimed specific amount and therefore is liable to pay advalorem Court Fee

2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 299
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
C.R. No. 814 of 2007 (O&M)
R.S. Malik
v.
Sh. Krishan Mohan, IAS & Ors.
{Decided on 07/09/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. B.R.Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.6: Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajeev Kawatra, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.7, R.11(b)--Court Fee Act, 1870, S.7(1)--Rejection of plaint--Deficient Court Fee--Suit for recovery of damages and cost of eight crore and interest--Suit for purpose of Court Fee valued at Rupees one lac and Court Fee of Rs.3320/- paid--Plaintiff claimed specific amount and therefore is liable to pay advalorem Court Fee--Petitioner granted one month’s time to make good Court Fee. (P.11 & 12)

Court Fee Act, 1870, S.7 (v) (a) (as applicable to the State of Haryana)

2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 298
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
Civil Revision No.4871 of 2009 (O&M)
Sohan Lal
v.
Manjula Mittal @ Manju Rani & Ors.
{Decided on 11/01/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos.1 & 4: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent 2 & 3: None.
Court Fee Act, 1870, S.7 (v) (a) (as applicable to the State of Haryana)--Ad-valorem Court Fee--Contention that petitioner willing to affix ad-valorem Court Fee as per Section 7(v) (a) as applicable to the State of Haryana and that said clause was amended in 1974 by Government of Haryana--Direction to petitioner to a affix the ad valorem court fee on the value of sale deeds set aside--Trial Court directed to asses impact of amended provision of law as applicable to State of Haryana and petitioner to affix Court fee in accordance there of. (P.2 & 6)
---------------