1949 (1) TMI 2

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ated to the plaintiff's commission business for the year 1944-45; (b) and for an injunction restraining the defendants from collecting sales tax on the plaintiff's commission business for 1944-45; and (c) for a further injunc- tion restraining the defendants from levying sales tax for the subsequent years on the plaintiff's commission business." In respect of relief (a) he paid a court-fee of Rs. 15 under Arti- cle 17A(i) and in respect of reliefs (b) and (c) he paid a court-fee under Section 7(iv) valuing the subject-matter at Rs. 10 each. In other words, he paid a court-fee in respect of relief (b) Rs. 1-2-0 and for relief (c) Rs. 1-2-0. When the matter came up before the learned District Munsif, he was of opinion that court-fee should....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....asking for a consequential relief. The amount of contribution determined was a sum of Rs. 8,000. The plaintiff paid a court-fee in respect of the declaration under Article 17-A (i), Schedule II, of the Court-fees Act of Rs. 100. When the matter came before the learned District Judge who heard the matter in the first instance, he was of opinion that Section 7 (iv-A) of the Court-fees Act introduced by the Madras Amending Act of 1922 applied to the case. The learned Judge Venkataramana Rao, J., disagreed with the view of the trial Court and held that as the order of the liquidator was not a "decree ", the court-fee paid by the plaintiff on the plaint as one for declaration was correct. The new Section 7 (iv-A) was introduced by the Amendin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ose of Section 7(iv) (c) will also be the value for purpose of jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. The argument of the learned Government Pleader that as the plaintiff in the present plaint valued the suit for purpose of jurisdiction in para. 8 of the plaint at Rs. 2,165, the same should also be the value for purposes of court-fee under Section 7(iv) (c) cannot be accepted. The plaintiff valued the plaint on a particular basis and that basis is now found to be erroneous. If Section 7(iv)(c) is the proper section applicable to the plaint, the plaintiff is entitled to put his own valuation for purposes of court-fee and that value will also be the value for purposes of jurisdiction in respect of suits of that kind. The ....