Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Luka Vs. State of Kerala

Luka vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided May 21, 1958
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/722681

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Court-fee Ref. in A.S. 130 of 1958
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Civil
Acts & sections
Court-fees Act, 1870 - Article 11; Travancore-Cochin Court-fees Act, 1125 - Article 6; Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Luka

Advocate M.T. Paikaday, Adv.

Respondent

State of Kerala

Advocate Government Pleader

Legal References

Acts
Court-fees Act, 1870 - Article 11; Travancore-Cochin Court-fees Act, 1125 - Article 6; Constitution of India - Article 226
Reported In
AIR1958Ker338

Excerpt

- g. kumara pillai, j.1. in this case two matters come up for consideration. according to the appellant's counsel, the court fee payable on a memorandum of appeal 01ed against an order on an application under article 226 of the constitution is only rs. 2/- under schedule 2 of article 6 of the court fees act according to the office, it is rs. 25/- under the rules framed by the high court governing applications under article 226. the covernment pleader appearing on behalf of the advocate general to whom notice was issued by us supports the appellant's counsel.the provision investing the high court with rule making power in the matter does hot authorise it to make rules for the levy of court-fee which has to be done under the provisions of the court fees act. we therefore hold that the rule relied upon by the office is ultra vires and that the proper court fee payable for the appeal is only rs. 2/-.the next matter is whether the appellant's counsel requires a fresh vakalath from the client for filing the appeal or whether he can make use of the original vakalath given to him before filing the writ application itself for filing the appeal also. according to the office, a fresh vakalath is necessary.in as much as the original vakalath contains an authorisation for filing the appeal also if the decision in the writ application went against the client, we are of the view that no fresh vakalath is necessary for filing the appeal.2. order accordingly.

Full Judgment

G. Kumara Pillai, J.

1. In this case two matters come up for consideration. According to the appellant's counsel, the court fee payable on a memorandum of appeal 01ed against an order on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution is only Rs. 2/- under Schedule 2 of Article 6 of the Court Fees Act According to the office, it is Rs. 25/- under the rules framed by the High Court governing applications under Article 226. The Covernment Pleader appearing on behalf of the Advocate General to whom notice was issued by us supports the appellant's counsel.

The provision investing the High Court with rule making power in the matter does hot authorise it to make rules for the levy of court-fee which has to be done under the provisions of the Court Fees Act. We therefore hold that the rule relied upon by the office is ultra vires and that the proper court fee payable for the appeal is only Rs. 2/-.

The next matter is whether the appellant's counsel requires a fresh vakalath from the client for filing the appeal or whether he can make use of the original vakalath given to him before filing the writ application itself for filing the appeal also. According to the office, a fresh vakalath is necessary.

In as much as the original vakalath contains an authorisation for filing the appeal also if the decision in the writ application went against the client, we are of the view that no fresh vakalath is necessary for filing the appeal.

2. Order accordingly.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial