Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an executable order made under the Companies Act is an order having the force of a decree within the meaning of Schedule 2, Article 11 of the Court-fees Act.
Analysis: Section 199 of the Companies Act provides that orders under the Act may be enforced in the same manner as decrees of the Court may be enforced. The governing distinction is between an order that itself has the force of a decree and an order that is merely enforceable in the same manner as a decree. The former alters the legal character of the order; the latter only prescribes the procedure for execution. The Court held that section 199 uses the language of enforcement only and does not deem such orders to be decrees or to have the force of decrees. The contrary view previously taken was treated as based on a misapprehension of the statutory wording.
Conclusion: An executable order under section 199 of the Companies Act is not, merely by reason of that provision, an order having the force of a decree for the purposes of Schedule 2, Article 11 of the Court-fees Act.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in the negative, and the matter was sent back for determination of the proper court fee on the basis that enforceability under section 199 is not equivalent to force of a decree.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory provision making an order enforceable in the same manner as a decree does not by itself confer on that order the force of a decree.