Case Details

Citation(s)
1967 SLG 5424 = 1966 SLD 5424 = 1967 PLD 113
Dacca High Court
Civil Rule No. 214 of 1964, decided on 2nd March 1966.
Presented By: K. M. Hasan, A. S. Chowdhury and Abu Md. Abdulla, JJ
Dr. Aleem-al-Razee and Harunar Rashid for Petitioner.   Abdus Salam, Abul Quasem Bhuiya for Kefiluddin   Choudhury for the Opposite-Party.  

RAHMAT ALI-Petitioner  

VERSUS

  MESSRS BENARES SILK INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER-Opposite-Parties

Law: Court Fees Act (VII of 1870)

Section: 7(v),7(xi),7(xii)

  Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7 (v), (xi), (xii) .'Suit for possession of premises from Licence whose licence has been revoked-Valuation for purpose of court fee-Governed by el. (xii) and not by cl. (v) of S. 7--Plaintiff, himself tenant of another, allowing defendant to carry on business temporarily as his Licencee-Court fee to be paid according to value claimed in suit in accordance with provision of S. 7 (xii)--Case-law fully discussed.   Basiram Christian v. Ganesh Chandra Das Gupta 24 C W N 167, 'Ram Raj Tewari v. Girinandan Bhagat and others I L R 15 All. 63; Mst. Barkatunnisa Begum v. Mst. Kaniza Fatma I L R 5 Pat. 631; Chandi Charan Das v. Sushila Bala Dasi 59 C W N 606; Hafiz M. Fateh Nasib v. Haji Abdur Rub tend others A I R 1954 Cal. 101; Ratilal Manilal v. Chandulal Chhotalal A I R 194? Born. 482 ; Satish Kumar and others v. Sm. Sailabasini Devi A I R 1949 Cal. 621 ; Manik Chand Mondal and another v. Sudhir Kumar Mondal and another 64 C W N 80; Gajanan Nanaji and others v. Rajeshwar Krishanji and. others A I R 1950 Nag. 237; Marthandrao Tatyaji v. Tarbai A I R 1952 M B 123; Niduganda Rudramani and another v. Chaduvula Srisailam and another A I R 1954 Mad. 200 and Sisir Kumar Dutta and others v. Susil Kumardutta 65 C W N 1 ref.   Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7(v)(a)-Expression "according to the subject-matter"-Word "subject-mater---" Means right sought to be established, wrong to be remedied and defence asserted in justification of wrong-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXIII, r. 3.   Shadi Ram v. Amin Chand and others 1930 Lah. 937 and 1 Corpus Juris (Secundum) 959 ref.   Interpretation of statutes-Ambiguity-Provision, to be construed beneficially.   Interpretation of statutes-Fiscal legislation-Ambiguity-- Construction should be beneficial. JUDGMENT   HASAN, J.-I agree with my learned brothers that the instant case is governed by clause (xii), section 7 of the Court Fees Act. Though I need not state the facts as the same have been elaborately stated in the judgments of my learned brothers, yet I only desire to add a few words on some provisions of section 7 of the Court…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register