REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

KUMARIKA SUBARNA REKHA MANI DEVI Appellant

V/S

RAMAKRISHNA DEOAND Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

BANARSI PERSHAD V. KASHI KRISHNA NARAIN [REFERRED TO]
RANGOON BOTATOUNG CO. LTD. V. COLLECTOR OF RANGOON [REFERRED TO]
CAPE BRANDY SYNDICATE V. INLAND REV COMMR. [REFERRED TO]
EAST END DWELLING CO. LTD. V. FINSBURY BOROUGH COUNCIL [REFERRED TO]
SUNKANI NEELAKANTAM V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
K. MUTHAYYA V. P. SWARAJVAM [REFERRED TO]
MANAVIKRAMAN V. COLLECTOR OF NILGIRIS [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA NARAIN SINHA V. HAFIJUR RAHMAN [REFERRED TO]
IN RE,PORKODI ACHI [REFERRED TO]
KALLIAPPA GOUNDAN V. KANDASWAMI GOUNDAN [REFERRED TO]
GANPATI V. VENKATESH [REFERRED TO]
RAMASWAMY AYYAR V. RANGASWAMI AYYAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BOMBAY VS. PANDURANG VINAYAK [REFERRED TO]
PITHAPURAM TALUK TOBACCO CIGARS AND SODA MERCHANTS UNION VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
M DODLA MALLIAH VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
VIDYUDAVALLI THAYAR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD SAYEED VS. M S MOHAMED JAFFAR [REFERRED TO]
KHATIZABAL MOHOMED IBRAHIM VS. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
ATMA SINGH VS. MOHAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM CHAND VS. PUNAM CHAND [REFERRED TO]
UDAY CHAND VS. MOHANLAL [REFERRED TO]
RADHAKRISHNA AYYAR VS. SWAMINATHA AYYAR [REFERRED TO]
AMARTA LAL KUMAR VS. SISIR KUMAR BASU [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIA AYYAR VS. VRAMA AYYAR [REFERRED TO]
GORAKH SAHU VS. SHEO NANDAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
APPARAO SHESHRAO DESHMUKH VS. MT. BHAGUBAI W/O. YESHWANTRAO DESHMUKH [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDA VS. BANSILAL [REFERRED TO]
HARIHAR RAO VS. SALU BAI [REFERRED TO]
RADHAKRISHNA AYYAR VS. SUNDARASWAMIER [REFERRED TO]
PALAGANI BALARAMI REDDY VS. SHAIK MASTHAN SAHEB [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have had the advantage and benefit of perusing the judgments of my learned brothers Kumarayya J., and Venkatesam, J. As the contentions, urged before us having been set out by Kumarayya, J, in his judgment. I find it unnecessary to reiterate them in any great detail.

(2.) The question before us is what is the court-fee payable under the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1956) (hereinafter called "the Act") on a memorandum of appeal filed against an order rejecting the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 C PC. Order 7 Rule 11 mentions four grounds on any one of which a plaint may be rejected. It reads thus:

(3.) The other question which arises in S. R. No. 37685 of 1965 is what is the court-tee payable on the memorandum of appeal against the order of rejection of the plaint, where the plaint was rejected for non-disclosure of a cause of action, under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) C. P. C. On this matter, two different views have been expressed one by Kumarayya, J. and the other by Venkatesam J. While both my learned brothers held that the memorandum of appeal against the rejection of a plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) or (d) C.P.C. is incapable of valuation and that court-fee is not provided for on such memorandum of appeal -- a view with which I respectfully agree. Kumarayya, J. is of the view that Section 47 read with Section 49 of the Act is applicable, on the basis that Section 47 will also cover suits whether capable of valuation or not, as long as they are not otherwise provided for I agree with Venkatesam, J. with respect, that this conclusion does not necessarily follow I give below Section 47 and the relevant provisions of Section 49 for a better appreciation of the contentions arising for determination: "Section 47:

Click here to view full judgment.

KUMARIKA SUBARNA REKHA MANI DEVI Vs. RAMAKRISHNA DEO

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address