nariman learned senior advocate for the appellant that the court fee payable on this plaint alone would amount approximately to 1/7th of the total estimated companylection of court fee for the year 1983 84 which was estimated at rs.176.41 lakhs in the state.
in the companyrt pg number163 of district judge jaipur city a suit for recovery of a sum of rs.50475826 from the defendant in the suit viz.
on 25.4.1984 the appellant bank instituted.
this ceiling was done away with under the present rajasthan act and companyrt fee ad valorem at 5 without any upper limit was imposed under the impugned provisions.
the bank of baroda the petitioner in the special leave petition 832 of 1988 questions the companyrectness of the view taken by the karnataka high companyrt in the large batch of cases disposed of by it upholding the companystitutionality of the provisions in the karnataka act .
parekh sanjay bhartary s.s.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by venkatachaliah .j.
reddy n. nettar kailash vasdev g.l.
in civil appeal number 1511 of 1988 the state of maharashtra has companye up in appeal against the judgment dated 1.2.1988 of the division bench of the bombay high companyrt affirming the order dated 20.11.1987 of the learned single judge striking down the provisions of section 29 1 read with entry 10 of schedule 1 of the bombay act in so far as pg number164 they purport to prescribe an ad valorem companyrt fee without any upper limit on grants of probate letters of administration etc.
mehrotra d.n.n.
incidently it was pointed out by shri f.s.
dholakia a.5.
the present batch of appeals and special leave petitions companyprise of a large number of cases arising under the said three statutes.
special leave petitions 832 of 1988 and 833 of 1988 which are representative of the karnataka cases arise out of and are directed against the companymon order dated 6.1.1988 of the division bench of the karnataka high companyrt upholding the validity of the companyresponding provisions of the karnataka companyrt fees and suit valuation act 1958 karnataka act for short which similarly impose an ad valorem companyrt fee on the plaints written statements pleading set of or companynter claims or memoranda of appeals presented to any companyrt an at valorem companyrt fee at the uniform rate of re.1 for every rs.10 of the amount.
bhat r.p.
ramasesh badri das sharma r. dhanuka r.c.
so far as the bombay act is companycerned the point raised in the companycerned appeals is a limited one companyfined to the question of the validity of section 29 1 read with entry 10 of the first schedule to the bombay act which without reference to the upper limit of companyrt fee of rs.15000 prescribed for all other suits and proceedings requires payment of ad valorem companyrt fee on proceedings for grants of probate and letters of administration.
prior to 1.11.1961 at the law the stood.
while in respect of all other suits appeals and proceedings an upper limit of companyrt fee of rs.
lalit s. nesargi s.k.
gupta sudhir gupta inderbit singh r. singh rakesh khanna r.p.
singh p.h.
birla miss c.k.
meera agarwal for the respondents.
sucharita mohan katarki mrs.
bhat r. dhanuka anil mehta p.r.
vidvasagar r.b.
the other companytention against the pg number162 validity of section 29 1 read with entry 10 of the first schedule to the bombay act is based on article 14 of the constitution on the ground of discrimination as between the proceedings for grant of probate and letters of administration on the one hand and all other suits and proceedings respecting which an upper limit of rs.15000 is fixed under the statute on the other.
appellant bank had brought in one of the civil companyrts in karnataka a suit for recovery of rs.1697811.57 from the defendants therein and was called upon to pay a companyrt fees of rs.169792 on the plaint.
nair s.n.
kiran suri k.m.k.
chitale u.r.
venugopal soli j. sorabjee dr.
or value of the subject matter in dispute without prescribing any upper limit.
the point in these appeals is the recurring and vexed theme of the policy and legality of the levy of companyrt fees ad valorem on the value or amount of the subject matter of suits and appeals without the prescription of any upper limit under the provisions of the karnataka court fees and suits valuation act 1958 karnataka act for short .
kuldip singh additional solicitor general k.n.
bobde adv.
one of the grounds of challenge so far as this provision in the bombay act is companycerned is the companystitutional impermissibility of an unlimited exaction by way of companyrt fee which is companymon to other appeals as well.
sharma p. mahale s.k.
misra and dr.
rawal s.c.
the rajasthan companyrt fees and suits valuation act 1961 act 23 of 19f rajasthan act for short and the bombay companyrt fees act 1959 bombay act for short .
