eng
competition

Text Practice Mode

High Court ki Taiyari

created Feb 6th 2023, 12:20 by 1998Raunak


0


Rating

404 words
6 completed
00:00
It would be clear that the amendment was brought with the avowed intention i.e. "augmenting the revenue" by enhancing the rate of Court Fees. The general object of the amendment of substituting new Article 1-A of Schedule I of the Act was to increase the ad valorem levy of the court fees on plaints and consequently, on the appeals of same value. The amendment was not for reducing the court fees. It appears that the Legislature, in order to make general enhancement, has levied 10% on Rs. 10,000/- plus 12% on the amount or value in excess of Rs. 10,000/- upto Rs. 5 Lacs. It may be that the appellant is required to pay less amount because his valuation of appeal is Rs. 12,170/- which is more than Rs. 10,000/-. There appears to be a marginal benefit in a given case although the Legislature wanted to increase the court fees generally. The decrease in the court fees is not universal. Take the case of a person required to pay court fees on the valuation of Rs. 50,000/-. He would be required to pay Rs. 5,800/- instead of Rs. 4,505/- which is more than what was fixed earlier. There is progressive enhancement of court fees under the new amendment on higher valuation. An amendment which was meant to enhance the court fees cannot be said to be in benefit of the litigant. It is expressly for enhancing the revenue of the State. It has, therefore, to be strictly construed. Nor can benefit be given to the appellants alone. If the new Amendment Act is applied from the date of commencement to cases where the suit was already pending on the date of commencement, a number of plaintiffs shall be required to pay higher court fees in most of the cases. There may be reduction of court fees in the cases like that of the appellants. The intention was to enhance the court fees. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the appellants is rejected. The persons like the appellants shall be liable to pay marginally more fee under the old law than most of the persons who would be governed by the Amendment. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that the intention of the Legislature was to reduce the court fees. The question of giving effect to intention of Legislature by holding it to be retrospective in operation does not arise.

 

saving score / loading statistics ...