Skip to main content

Delhi High Court strikes down hike in court fees

In a major relief for common litigants, the Delhi High Court on 9th October, struck down the Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2012, through which the Delhi Government had increased court fees across the board last year.

A Division Bench of Justice Gita Mittal and Justice J. R. Midha quashed the government’s decision on a petition filed by the Delhi High Court Bar Association, arguing that the government lacked the jurisdiction to carry out the amendment.

The Association had challenged the increase by saying the Delhi Government did not have the legislative competence to increase the fees as the law governing them was a Central legislation.

The Delhi Government had defended the hike saying that the new rates had been introduced on the instructions of the High Court and that it would facilitate implementation of the e-Court project in the Capital.

“We have held that the Delhi Assembly did not have the legislative competence to amend the Court Fees Act, 1870. We have also held that the Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2012, adversely impacts the Part-III rights and results in violation of Article 38 and 39A of the Constitution of India,” the Bench said.

“For these reasons, the Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2012, as a whole has to be struck down. The Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2012, is hereby declared as invalid and ultra vires the Constitution and therefore, struck down,” the Bench said. “As a result, the respondents would be liable to refund court fees, which have been recovered from litigants based on the prescriptions contained in the Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2012,” the Bench stated.

 Article referred: http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/delhi-high-court-strikes-down-hike-in-court-fees/article5220508.ece

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil
3 comments
Read more