TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Rejects Application to Dismiss Counter Claim Due to Ad-Valorem Court Fee</h1> <h3>Vijay Singh Versus Narinder Singh</h3> Vijay Singh Versus Narinder Singh - TMI Issues:Application for rejection of Counter Claim based on valuation and payment of ad-valorem Court Fee.Analysis:The plaintiff filed an application invoking Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking rejection of the Counter Claim filed by the Defendant. The Counter Claim stated the valuation of the Suit for the relief of Rendition of Accounts at Rs. 18,54,500, but fixed a court fee of Rs. 20. The plaintiff argued that ad-valorem Court Fee on the stated amount should be paid by the Defendant. However, the Defendant contended that the total rent recovered by the plaintiff from the tenants was Rs. 18,34,500, and the Defendant was entitled to a 1/6th share, which would be adjudicated upon during the rendition of accounts. The Defendant maintained that only a tentative valuation had been carried out, and no definite, ascertained, or liquidated amount had been claimed in the Counter Claim.The plaintiff relied on a previous court decision where ad-valorem Court Fee was mandated for a specific sum, unlike the present case where the amount was not finalized. The Court, after a holistic reading of the pleadings and considering relevant case laws, concluded that the Defendant was not liable to pay ad-valorem Court Fee at this stage as the correctness of the claimed sums was yet to be determined. The Court highlighted that the Defendant intended the rendition of accounts, and as per legal precedents, the Defendant's obligation to pay ad-valorem Court Fee would arise only when the actual amounts were ascertained. Therefore, the application for rejection of the Counter Claim based on valuation and ad-valorem Court Fee payment was deemed without merit and dismissed.In conclusion, the Court directed the filing of a reply to the Counter Claim within four weeks and granted a final opportunity to file documents within the same period. The case was scheduled for renotification for admission/denial of documents before the Joint Registrar on 8.10.2004 and before the Court for framing of Issues on 25.10.2004.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
