Skip to content


Mt. Bhagwanti Vs. Mt. Dhanwani and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1932All319; 140Ind.Cas.68
AppellantMt. Bhagwanti
RespondentMt. Dhanwani and ors.
Excerpt:
.....8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - 3. the decision being final, we may either dismiss this appeal or allow time to the appellant to make good the deficiency. the learned counsel asks for three months' time and we allow him three months in which to make good the deficiency of rs......was brought to the notice of the taxing officer. the report as to deficiency was made by the chief inspector of stamps. under the high court rules, ch. 3, rule 10, the person who reports to this high court on the deficiency or otherwise of stamps is the stamp reporter. these words have now been explained by a recent amendment, which adds after the words 'stamp reporter' the words 'or any other officer specially appointed in this behalf.' the appellant's counsel contends that prior to that amendment the words 'stamp reporter' stood alone and did not include the chief inspector of stamps, consequently no objection made by the chief inspector of stamps has any validity and the decision passed by the taxing officer on a difference of opinion between the chief inspector of stamps and.....
Judgment:

Niamatullah, J.

1. The taxing officer has reported a deficiency in the court-fee in this appeal of Rs. 333-8-0 corresponding to a similar deficiency in the plainfe in the suit and counsel for the appellant takes exception to this report. While he admits that under Section 5, Court-fees Act, the decision of the taxing officer is final, he takes exception to the manner in which the matter was brought to the notice of the taxing officer. The report as to deficiency was made by the Chief Inspector of Stamps. Under the High Court Rules, Ch. 3, Rule 10, the person who reports to this High Court on the deficiency or otherwise of stamps is the stamp reporter. These words have now been explained by a recent amendment, which adds after the words 'stamp reporter' the words 'or any other officer specially appointed in this behalf.' The appellant's counsel contends that prior to that amendment the words 'Stamp Reporter' stood alone and did not include the Chief Inspector of Stamps, consequently no objection made by the Chief Inspector of Stamps has any validity and the decision passed by the taxing officer on a difference of opinion between the Chief Inspector of Stamps and the appellant is not final as laid down by Section 5 Court-fees Act. But the Court-fees Act takes no cognizance of the Stamp Reporter or the Chief Inspector of Stamps. It merely states:

in case of difference of opinion with the officer whose duty it is to see that any fees are paid and any suitor or attorney.

2. In our opinion the Chief Inspector of Stamps is an officer whose duty it is to see that the fee is paid under this chapter, and the decision of the taxing jofficer on a difference of opinion between the Chief Inspector of Stamps and the -suitor is final decision.

3. The decision being final, we may either dismiss this appeal or allow time to the appellant to make good the deficiency. We are prepared to allow time. The learned Counsel asks for three months' time and we allow him three months in which to make good the deficiency of Rs. 667 pointed out by the taxing officer.


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