Skip to content


Haridasi Debi Vs. Gopeshwar Pyne and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923Cal599,77Ind.Cas.619
AppellantHaridasi Debi
RespondentGopeshwar Pyne and ors.
Excerpt:
court-fees act (vii of 1870), section 19, clause (xx), schedule ii, article 1 - application for refund of money deposited in court--court-fee, payment of. - lancelot sanderson, c.j.1. this is an application made by the learned vakil in respect of a petition presented by the appellant to england in an appeal to the judicial committee of the privy council. the petition is as follows: it is addressed to 'the hon'ble sir lancelot sanderson, kt., k.c., chief justice and his companion justices, of the said hon'ble court.'1. that your petitioner put in rs. 100 as a deposit towards costs of preparation of paper-book in the above-mentioned appeal.2. that on nth july 1921 the said appeal was dismissed for default for nonpayment of the balance of the costs.3. that nobody appeared for the respondents in the said appeal.2. the prayer was for the refund of the said sum of rs. 100 or any sum that is in deposit to the credit of petitioner after deducting the.....
Judgment:

Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.

1. This is an application made by the learned Vakil in respect of a petition presented by the appellant to England in an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The petition is as follows: It is addressed to 'The Hon'ble Sir Lancelot Sanderson, Kt., K.C., Chief Justice and his companion Justices, of the said Hon'ble Court.'

1. That your petitioner put in Rs. 100 as a deposit towards costs of preparation of paper-book in the above-mentioned appeal.

2. That on nth July 1921 the said appeal was dismissed for default for nonpayment of the balance of the costs.

3. That nobody appeared for the respondents in the said appeal.

2. The prayer was for the refund of the said sum of Rs. 100 or any sum that is in deposit to the credit of petitioner after deducting the necessary costs incurred by the office, in connection with the said appeal or to pass such other, order as to your Lordships may seem fit and proper.'

3. When this petition was presented the officer of the Court informed the Vakil that it required a Court-fee of two rupees. The learned Vakil objected to the payment of the two rupees and the matter has been referred to the Court for decision. The learned Vakil based his argument upon Section 19(xx) of the Court Fees Act of 1870, which he informs us has not been altered by the new Act dealing with Court-fees. That section provides that 'Nothing contained in this Act shall render the following documents chargeable with any fee,' and Clause (xx) runs as follows: 'Application for payment of money due by Government to the applicant.' The learned Vakil has argued that this petition is an application for payment of money due by Government to the applicant. The balance of Rs. 100 we are informed, is lying in the Bank to the credit of the Registrar of the, Court. In my judgment this is not an application for payment of money due by Government to the applicant within the meaning of Section 19, Clause (xx). On the other hand in my judgment it is an application or petition which was presented to this Court, consequently it comes within the provisions of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, Article 1, 'application or petition when presented to a High Court--two rupees.' It is clearly a petition which was presented to the High Court and in my judgment is liable to a fee of two rupees. I am confirmed in my judgment by the information, which I have received, that this is in accordance with the established practice.

4 Fur these reasons the petition will be returned to the learned Vakil for the purpose of the payment of the proper fee, viz., two rupees.

Richardson, J.

5. I entirely concur.


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