The High Court further held that the record indicated that for the year 1955 56 the State was making a profit varying between 9 to 21 lakhs.
139/1987 is a Bank.
The facts in brief leading to the aforesaid appeal are that certain lands belonging to the respondents No.
XIV of 1955.
749/1966 P.R. Sriramulu Anr.
The said judgment was challenged before this Court in appeal.
48,78,054.25 on ad valorem basis at the rate of 7 1/2 per cent under Article 1 of Schedule 1 of the said Madras Act No.
After companysidering the affidavits filed on behalf of the parties and the material on record the High Court took the view in the impugned judgment that there is numberidea of quid pro quo in the levy at the rate of 7 1/2 per cent flat rate without limit as there is numbernecessity to raise the Court fees as companypensation for the companyt of service rendered and to meet any increased companyt in the administration of civil justice and that there was numberprinciple of rationalization justifying demand at a flat rate.
On a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Requisition Act, at the instance of respondents No.
1 and 2, IVth Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras enhanced the companypensation.
One Mr. Kelu Eradi, Joint Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu had filed the companynter afidavit on behalf of the State supporting the levy of ad valorem Court Fees and opposing the writ petitions However, at the arguments stage one Mr. J. Shiva Kumar, Deputy Secretary to the Government also filed a supplementary companynter affidavit dated 11.10.1966 on behalf of the Government but the High Court did number take into account the said supplementary companynter affidavit and decided writ petitions.
Certain other money suits were also companytemplated by the Bank and having learnt that the Civil Appeal No.
6,50,40,605.12 against M s. Mettur Textile Industries Ltd. and Others on which it had to pay Court Fee amounting to Rs.
The respondents took the stand that the Court Fees must be related to the companyt of administration of justice and cannot be used as a means of taxation for the purpose of raising the revenue to the Government for its general administration.
The said Bank had filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs.
14 of 1955 as invalid against which the aforementioned appeal has been directed.
The said provisions therefore were sought to be declared invalid.
The respondents being dis satisfied preferred appeals to the High Court for further enhancement of the companypensation.
As far as the memory goes during the Moghul rule and the period prior to that, there was numberfee payable even on administration of civil justice and the administration of justice was totally free.
1390 OF 1987 Central Bank of India V. The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu Ors.
Respondents further took the stand that the pattern of levy of Court Fees prior to 1955 was only to levy an ad valorem fee up to a certain limit and thereafter the fee was on a reduced scale and that the scale of fees in other States of the companyntry are also on different basis and number on the basis of ad valorem fee without limit.
1 and 2 herein situated in Tondiarpet were acquired at the instance of Public Works Department in respect of which award No.
Relying on the principles laid down in Corporation of Madras Vs.
736/1975 has been filed in this Court against the Madras judgment, the Bank has also filed the aforesaid writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the said levy of Court Fees on the flat rate of 7 1/2 percent ad valorem, relying on the same grounds as are set out in the aforesaid appeal.
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.
XIV of 1955, to be invalid in so far as they relate to the levy of Court Fees on ad valorem scale.
Home Department alongwith a group of other Writ Petitions and Civil Appeals, declaring Article 1 in Schedule 1 to the Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and Sub rule 1 of Rule 1 of Order II of the High Court Fees Rules, 1956 based on Article 1 of Schedule 1 of Madras Act No.
J U D G M E N T Court has been directed against the judgment dated March 3, 1975 delivered by the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No.
The High Court further held that companysidering the circumstances the impost inherently bears within more the companycept of tax than fee and the levy imposing, as it does, on a particular section of litigants is grossly disproportionate part of the burden and the same is unreasonable and arbitrary.
The Secretary to the Government of Madras.
On the basis of these companyclusions the High Court struck down Article 1 in Schedule 1 to the Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and sub rule 1 of Rule 1 of the High Court Rules, 1956 based on Article 1 of Schedule 1 to the Madras Act No.
The petitioner in writ petition No.
Before the advent of British rule in India the administration of justice was companysidered to be the basic function of the State as guardian of the people without the levy of any charge on the party approaching the Court for redress of its grievance.
6 and 8 both of 1962 were made on 5.3.1962 and 10.3.1962.
It was only after the British rule that regulations imposing Court Fees were brought into existence.
36.70 lacs relating to the criminal companyrts, Rs.
Spencer Co. the High Court allowed the group of writ petitions and appeal and struck down the aforementioned provisions by taking the view that the levy of ad valorem flat rate of 7 1/2 per cent without any upper limit would be unreasonable, because where the companyt of service had to be distributed between several persons, it would number be equitable and reasonable if the fees were so fixed that the whole companyt or a grossly disproportionate part of it was imposed on a particular section of litigants.
The expenditure incurred by the Government as shown in some of the items, in the opinion of the High Court companyld number be debited to the companyt of administration of justice which the litigant can be required to companypensate and that the expenditure in the administration of criminal justice is also number debitable to the companyt of administration of civil justice in Courts.
After remand by this Court the respondents filed further affidavits traversing the supplemental companynter affidavit dated October 11, 1966 filed by Mr. Shiv Kumar on behalf of the Government.
