TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1971 (4) TMI 109
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hares of the Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate Ltd., a public limited company, to petitioner No. 1 in consideration of Rs. 4650/- and in exchange for and against delivery by the respondent of the respective share certificates with the relative transfer forms executed by the respondent in blank. The respondent is also alleged to have given an undertaking at the time that all documents of title as may be required will be executed by the respondent to complete the petitioner's title as a shareholder; that all new shares will be transferred in the name of the petitioners and all dividend warrants with respect to the shares sold which may be received by the respondent in future will be delivered to the petitioners till the shares are transferred in the books of the company in the name of the petitioners. The petitioners stated that various dividends were declared for various years mentioned in the plaint. The petitioners further stated that they applied to the company for the transfer of the said shares in the name of the second petitioner but the dividend warrants were sent by the company to the respondent and the said company had refused to register the shares in the name of peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e as the Hon'ble Court may think fit and the same be ordered to be paid over to the plaintiffs or either of them' (e) that the defendants be ordered by a mandatory injunction of this Hon'ble Court to carry out his undertaking to deliver to the plaintiffs duly endorsed all future dividend warrants in respect of the said shares and to execute such number of further proxies as the plaintiffs may desire and also to exercise a power of Attorney in respect of the said shares in terms of the draft power of attorney annexed to Ex `E' hereto with or without such modification as this Hon'ble Court may think fit". 3. The respondent objected to the valuation of the suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction and also stated that some of the reliefs claimed were vague. The trial Court by its order dated August 8, 1962, found that relief (d) as to interest was vague and directed the petitioners to apply for necessary amendment. This finding of the trial Court is not challenged in this Court. 4. The trial Court held that the petitioners had claimed a declaration that they were the owners of the shares in question and the respondent was their trustees and had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lder except in accordance with the directions of the petitioners and from recovering or receiving any dividends declared by the company in respect of the said shares. 7. Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court fees Act relates to a suit which has been filed to obtain a declaratory decree or order where consequential relief is prayed and in such a suit the court-fee is payable according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. Without anything more, the valuation on reliefs prayed for in Cls. (a) and (b) in the plaint at Rs. 200/- would be unexceptionable and court-fee would be payable on this amount. But, the Punjab Court-fee (Amendment) Act, 1953, which has been extended to Delhi has added a second proviso to Section 7(iv)(c) which reads:- "Provided further that in suits coming under sub-clause (c) in cases where the relief sought is with reference to any property such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for Clause (iv) of this section" As a result of this proviso even in suits to obtain a declaratory decree or order where consequential relief is prayed and where the suit is with reference to an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion can be applied to all in the present case. If it cannot be applied at all, effect is to be given to the main provision and the proviso is to be accepted, the words "calculated in the manner provided for by Clause (v) of this section" in the proviso would be redundant in the case of suits to obtain a declaratory decree or order to property other than land, houses and gardens. If a provision is to be applied it has to be applied fully because by not applying it fully, the Court would be legislating and that is not the function of a Court. 8. The respondent has relied upon a decision of Bishan Narain, J. reported in MANU/PH/0105/1956 in re; Ram Kanwar v. Naurang Rai holding that the word "property" in the said proviso is used in the sense of a right in the property involved in the case. The case before the learned Judge was for a declaration for cancellation of a lease deed and as a consequential relief a prayer had been made for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the property under lease. The value for purpose of court-fees and jurisdiction had been fixed at Rs. 500/-. The trial court applied Section 7(v) of the Court-fees Act and held that the valu....