Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted. 2. Lands belonging to Ambya Kalya Mhatre (`A.K.Mhatre' for short, now represented by his LRs.) situated at Dapoli village, Panvel taluk, Raigad district, bearing Sy. Nos.89/1, 85/1, 27/1, 41/1B, 41/1A, 152/3, 155/7, 18/7, 89/3, 23/2 and 99/1 in all measuring 1.73.6 Hectares (17360 sq.m.) with a large number of fruit bearing trees and a well therein, were acquired for New Bombay project in pursuance of preliminary notification dated 3.2.1970 (read with corrigendum dated 5.9.1970) and final notification dated 29.7.1979. 3. The special Land Acquisition Officer (for short `the Collector') awarded the following compensation by award dated 4.7.1986: S.No. Description Market Solatium Additional amount Total value (30%) @ 12% per annum 1. Land ` 24,898.32 ` 7469.49 ` 49,049.69 ` 81,417.50 2. Trees ` 83,629.00 ` 25,088.70 ` 1,65,586.40 ` 2,74,303.10 3. Well ` 500.00 ` 150.00 ` 990.00 ` 1,640.00 Possession of the land was taken on 9.9.1986. Not being satisfied with the compensa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1968)70BOMLR407
Chitale, J.1. This is a group of appeals preferred against the award passed by the learned Arbitrator, who was the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik, under Section 8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (Central Act No. XXX of 1952), hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1952. Some appeals are preferred by the claimants and some are by the Union of India disputing the correctness of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Arbitrator.2. These appeals are preferred on a fixed Court-fee of Rs. 5 each, although the claim in these appeals runs into thousands of rupees. We felt doubtful about the correctness of the amount of Court-fee paid and on inquiry we were told that fixed Court-fee of Rs. 5 was accepted by the office of this Court in view of the decision of this Court in Hirji Virji v. Government of Bombay [1944] 47 Bom. L.R. 327, which was followed in a subsequent unreported decision of this Court in The Government of Maharashtra v. Laxman ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1969Bom423; (1969)71BOMLR340
1. This is an appeal against an order dated 8th March 1967 passed by a Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court returning the plaint to the plaintiff for want of jurisdiction and for presentation to the proper court under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The plaintiff has filed the suit from which the present appeal arises in the Bombay City Civil Court on the following allegations:The plaintiff is the widow of one Chimanlal Chhotalal Desai who died on or about 22nd January 1965. The defendant No.1 is the Union of India. The defendant No.2 is the Additional Collector of Bombay in charge of income-tax recoveries. The deceased Chimanlal Desai, the husband of the plaintiff, was assessed to income-tax amounting to Rs.8,82,427.65 p. In realization of the said amount of income-tax the defendant No.2 had attached a property bearing city Survey No.7/596 of Malbar and Cumbala Hill Divisions, situated at Bhulabhai Desai road, in the compound known as 'Oomer Park', Bo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1970Delhi576
S.N. Andley, J.(1) The respondent has made this application in the appeal contending that there is no properly constituted memorandum of appeal as proper court fee has not been paid and the failure of the appellant to pay proper court fee has resulted in the appeal having become time-barred. The appellant contends that the appeal is under section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 and the contentions of the respondent are not legally maintainable. (2) It is noticeable that the respondent in his application, has not indicated the particular provision in the Court Fees Act under which court fee is payable. All that has been stated is that the appeal is 'from a decree or at least an order having the force of a decree. In both cases, ad valorem court fee on the value of the suit in the original Court is payable on the memorandum of appeal.' The respondent's contention, thereforee, appears to be that the same court fee should have been paid on this memorandum of appeal under Schedule I Ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1971Ker257
Krishnamoorthy Iyer. J. 1. These court-fee references under Section 11 of the Kerala Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (referred to as the Kerala Act) raise a question of construction of Section 51 of the said Act.2. Section 51 of the Kerala Act reads:'The fee payable under this Act on a memorandum of appeal against an order relating to compensation under any Act for the time being in force for the acquisition of property for public purposes shall be computed on the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant.'3. The point to be decided is whether the appellants are bound to include in their valuation of the appeals the statutory solatium of 15% on the market value which they are entitled to get under the Land Acquisition Act on the excess compensation claimed in the appeals and pay court-fee thereon.4. In Brahmanandam v. Secy. of State, AIR 1930 Mad 45 Anantakrishna Ayyar, J., took the view based on Section 8 of the Central Court-fees Act (Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1978Bom325; (1978)80BOMLR46
Tulzapurkar, J.1. Since common questions arise for decision in these three matters, they have been placed before us together and we shall dispose them of by a common judgment. How-ever, it will be sufficient if the facts pertaining to one of the petitions viz. in Special Civil Application No. 1769 of 1976 are stated.2. The petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 1769 of 1976 were the Owners of a plot of open land bearing City Survey No. 5 (original Survey No. 28A. Hissa No. 7 part) admeasuring 1093 2/3 sq. yards situate at Nawapada, Thana. An area admeasuring about 907 sq. yards out of the petitioners' aforesaid plot of land was acquired by the State Government for the purposes of Naupada Police Station under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act No. 1 of 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), leaving an area of 1862/3 sq. yards (132 sq. yards on the southern side and 54 2/3 sq. yards on the northern side) with the petitioners. In respect of this area of 907 sq. yards the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1986)88BOMLR308
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated September 24, 1979 passed by a Judge of the City Civil Court at Bombay returning the plaint in Suit No. 6769 of 1978. The suit had been filed by the appellants, hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiffs'. The first respondent in this appeal was the first defendant in the suit. It is a private limited company of which the plaintiffs are admittedly the shareholders. Authorised capital of the company is Rs. 5 lakhs divided into 5,000 shares of Rs. 100 each. At the relevant time, however, subscribed capital of the company was only Rs. 10,200 consisting of 102 shares of Rs. 100 each. The plaintiffs hold 74 shares while defendants Nos. 2 to 4 together hold the balance of shares.2. On September 11, 1978, the first defendant issued further 1,020 shares and allotted all of them to defendants Nos. 2 to 4 in equal shares. The plaintiffs say that this action of the first defendant in issuing additional shares to defendants Nos....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1994)1GLR237
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The question raised in this petition is directly covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P.M. Ashwathanarayana Setty and Ors. v. State of Karnataka AIR 1989 SC 100 confirming the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Mrs. Jyoti Nikul Jariwala and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1988 Bombay 123.2. The petitioner applied for succession certificate and letters of administration on the death of his father. The application was registered as Succession Miscellaneous Application No. 166 of 1990 in the Court of the Civil Judge (S.D.), Baroda. The succession certificate has been ordered to be issued in favour of the petitioner. However, the actual issuance of succession certificate is held up on account of non-payment of Courtfees. According to the respondent authorities, having regard to the valuation of the property of Rs. 7,52,760/- the Court-fees payable would be Rs. 54,000/-.3. Section 29 of the Bombay Court Fees Act provides for the payment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1996(1)BomCR551; (1996)98BOMLR675
A.P. Shah, J.1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to avail of the benefit of the notification dated October 1, 1994 issued by the Government of Maharashtra under section 46 of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959 ('Act', for short) with a view to promote the welfare of the women, is a short question, which falls for my consideration in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.2. The notification dated October 1, 1994 reads as follows :'Revenue and Forests Department Mantralaya, Bombay 400 032, dated the 1st October, 1994.Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959.No. STP/1094/CR-859/M-1.---Whereas, the Government of Maharashtra has recently announced a policy with a view to promote the welfare of the women;And whereas, the said welfare policy for women inter alia, provides for exemption of Court fees for women litigants in cases relating to maintenance, property right, violence and divorce.And whereas, section 46 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (Bom. XXXVI of 1959) empowers the State Govern...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1996Ker261
Usha, J.1. The above three appeals are at the instance of State of Kerala. Challenge is against the judgment of Prl. Subordinate court, Trivandrum and Addl. Subordinate Court, Trivandrum in L.A.R. Nos. 76, 103 and 24 of 1985 respectively. The land acquisition reference arose out of acquisition proceedings for Vizhinjam Harbour Project. In L.A.R. No. 96/87 10.60 Ares of land inSy. No. 399/8-11 of Kottukkal Village belonging to the respondents were acquired as per notification dated 10-2-1979. In L.A.A. No 93/87 105.62 Ares of land in Sy. No. 399/ 8-9 belonging to the respondents were acquired under the same notification, whereas in L.A.A. No. 265/85 the area acquired would come to 45.93 Ares in Sy. No. 399/8-7. The award was passed in all the three cases on 27-3-1982 and possession was taken on 29-4-1982 in the case of L.A.A. Nos. 96 and 93/87 and 29-3-1982 in L.A.A. No. 265/87.2. The Land Acquisition Officer classified properties in L.A.A. Nos. 96 and 93 of 1987 and 265 of, 1987 under ...
Tag this Judgment!