Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme Court

No Consideration Amount Passed, No Ad Valorem Court Fees Arises – Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Revision Petition in Specific Performance Suit

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a recent judgment, dismissed a revision petition challenging the order on court fee deficiency in a specific performance suit. The decision, delivered by Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Alka Sarin, held that where no consideration amount has been passed in a property transfer agreement, the question of affixing ad valorem court fees does not arise.

Legal Point of Judgment: The Court deliberated on the applicability of ad valorem court fees in a suit for specific performance where no monetary consideration is involved. The ruling reaffirmed the principle that court fees are contingent on the existence of a consideration amount in such agreements.

Facts and Issues: The suit involved a property agreement between brothers, where the petitioner alleged that the plaintiff-respondent had not affixed appropriate ad valorem court fees to the plaint. The respondent had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement/affidavit executed by the petitioner regarding a property transfer, wherein it was stated that no consideration amount had been passed.

Nature of Suit: The Court noted that the suit was for specific performance of an agreement dated 06.06.2019, without any monetary transaction.

Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC: The petitioner’s application for directing the plaintiff to rectify court fee deficiency was dismissed, leading to the present revision petition.

Consideration Amount and Court Fees: Justice Sarin emphasized that court fees need to be affixed based on the consideration amount. In this case, since no such amount was involved, the requirement of ad valorem court fees did not arise.

Examination of Plaint Contents: The decision highlighted that under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the contents of the plaint are to be considered, and not the contents of the application or the written statement.

Decision: The Court dismissed the revision petition, finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and holding the petition devoid of merit. All pending applications related to the case were also disposed of.

Date of Decision: April 3, 2024.

Paras Dhawan VS Sachin Dhawan

 

Latest Legal News