Apex court judgements on payment of court fees in suit filed for recovery

feature-top

Case Excerpts-

1. Albert Morris V. J.B. Simons Supreme Court Of India | 23-02-2017 

Judgment: 

In this case, Respondent herein (the plaintiff) was granted time to pay the balance Court Fee and for ex-parte evidence. Thereafter, the case was adjourned by 10 days for payment of balance Court Fee. The Court observed that this is a suit for recovery of money and in our view, the Court should have put the parties at least to terms and then disposed of the matter on merits expeditiously. 

https://www.legitquest.com/case/albert-morris-v-jb-simons/A39C4

2. Union Of India & Another V. Machinery Sale Corporation Supreme Court Of India | 10-01-2003 

Judgment: 

In the said case, the respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of money under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The plaintiff-respondent were permitted to convert the summary suit in a regular suit, subject to payment of Court fee and other formalities, if required under law. 

https://www.legitquest.com/case/union-of-india–another-v-machinery-sale-corporation/21DD

3. India Electric Works Ltd. V. James Mantosh & Anr Supreme Court Of India | 15-09-1970 

Judgment: 

In this case, the admitted and proved facts are that the claim made in the present suit was included in the previous money suit No. 28 of 1948 and a decree had been passed by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs for the entire claim including the claim for future damages. The plaintiffs were only required to pay additional court fee as provided by the Indian Court Fees Act for the claim relating to future damages and the plaintiffs had in fact paid the required amount of additional Court fee. The benefit of Section 14 (1), therefore, was rightly allowed by the High Court for future damages. 

https://www.legitquest.com/case/india-electric-works-ltd-v-james-mantosh–anr/3FA8

4. United Bank Of India V. Naresh Kumar Supreme Court Of India | 18-09-1996 

Judgment: 

In the said case, the Court observed that the full amount of court fee had been paid by the appellant-Bank; documentary as well as oral evidence had been led on behalf of the appellant. 

https://www.legitquest.com/case/united-bank-of-india-v-naresh-kumar/248CA

5. Chiranji Lal (D) By Lrs. V. Hari Das (D) By Lrs Supreme Court Of India | 13-05-2005

Judgment: 

In this case, the Supreme Court observed that In Yeshwant Deorao Deshmukh v. Walchand Ramchand Kothari it was said that the payment of court fee on the amount found due was entirely in the power of the decree holder and there was nothing to prevent him from paying it then and there; it was a decree capable of execution from the very date it was passed.

https://www.legitquest.com/case/chiranji-lal-d-by-lrs-v-hari-das-d-by-lrs/270AE

Add a Comment