https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282569 Where the plaint itself shows that the subject-matter is movable property with an ascertainable market value, the suit must be valued on that basis for court-fees and jurisdiction, even if framed as an injunction or mandatory return of pledged shares. The Court held that the substance of the claim, not the plaintiffs' characterisation or the defendants' disputed stand, governs valuation, and rejected reliance on residuary valuation provisions. On that footing, the suit attracted the relevant court-fee provision and the City Civil Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction; the revision was allowed, the order was set aside, and the plaint was returned for presentation to the proper court. en-us Mon, 25 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Aug 2019 14:05:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282569 Where the plaint itself shows that the subject-matter is movable property with an ascertainable market value, the suit must be valued on that basis for court-fees and jurisdiction, even if framed as an injunction or mandatory return of pledged shares. The Court held that the substance of the claim, not the plaintiffs' characterisation or the defendants' disputed stand, governs valuation, and rejected reliance on residuary valuation provisions. On that footing, the suit attracted the relevant court-fee provision and the City Civil Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction; the revision was allowed, the order was set aside, and the plaint was returned for presentation to the proper court. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 25 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282569