Skip to content


Erakshah Dhanjiseth Vs. Adarji Dorabji and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR7Bom535
AppellantErakshah Dhanjiseth
RespondentAdarji Dorabji and anr.
Excerpt:
court fees - petition to wind up partnership--indian contract act (ix of 1872), section 265--plaint--court fees act vii of 1870, schedule i, article 1. - - this demand is essentially a plaint, and must be paid for in fees at the same rate as any other plaint for, an account extend| ins to a like amount of valuation.west, j.1. we are of opinion that, whether the relief sought under section 265 of act ix of 1872 be sought by an application called a plaint, or by one called a petition, the nature of the remedy is not affected. nor is the nature of the inquiry requisite for an adjudication affected by the title of the demand made for it. this demand is essentially a plaint, and must be paid for in fees at the same rate as any other plaint for, an account extend| ins to a like amount of valuation.
Judgment:

West, J.

1. We are of opinion that, whether the relief sought under Section 265 of Act IX of 1872 be sought by an application called a plaint, or by one called a petition, the nature of the remedy is not affected. Nor is the nature of the inquiry requisite for an adjudication affected by the title of the demand made for it. This demand is essentially a plaint, and must be paid for in fees at the same rate as any other plaint for, an account extend| ins to a like amount of valuation.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //