Sunday, 21 May 2017

How to determine court fees in suit for mandatory injunction for return of cheque?


The suit as framed is one for mandatory injunction,

directing the defendant to return the cheques allegedly

issued by the plaintiff as security. The suit is not one for a

declaration that the plaintiff has already paid the amount due

to the defendant covered by the cheques in question.

Therefore the finding of the court below that the valuation of

the plaint under Section 27(c) of the Kerala Court Fees and

Suits Valuation Act, 1959 is proper cannot be faulted with.

     2. The plaintiff has a contention that he has already

paid Rs.1,05,000/- due to the defendant and that the sum of

Rs.2,40,000/- shown in both the cheques together is not the

correct amount.    These are all incidental questions to be

considered by the court below in the matter of granting the

relief of mandatory injunction sought for. But the plaintiff


has not sought for any declaration to that effect and

therefore there is no necessity to pay the court fee under

Section 25 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation

Act, 1959.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT:

          MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

    11TH DAY OF JUNE 2012

                   CRP.No. 65 of 2012 

        SIJU PAUL Vs T.V.SUBASH,
        
Print Page

Whether accused convicted U/S 394 of IPC can be released on probation of offender Act?

 Thus, merely because the maximum sentence of life could have
been awarded under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, it would be no
ground for not granting the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the
respondent. The Court has a discretion in matters of sentencing and the
sentencing process would hinge on the nature and circumstances of the
case.
16. In State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Dharam Pal: (2004) 9 SCC 681,
the accused was convicted under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the
IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for three years and was directed to
pay a fine. In appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction but
considering the relationship and the age of the accused, applied Section 4
of the Probation of Offenders Act and directed for his release on
probation of good conduct. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case,
though took into account that the offence charged was one under Section
376 but held that the Probation of Offenders Act is intended to reform the
person who can be reformed and would cease to be a nuisance in the
society. The Supreme Court was of the view that the discretion to
exercise the jurisdiction under the Act is hedged with a condition about
the nature of offence and the character of the offender. The order of the
High Court was, therefore, affirmed and upheld by the Supreme Court.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Delivered on: 17.05.2017
 CRL.A.539/2016
STATE 
v
LUCKY 
CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Print Page

What is distinction between partition of property and separation of shares?

A partition of a property can be only among those having
a share or interest in it. A person who does not have a share in
such property cannot obviously be a party to a partition.
`Separation of share' is a species of 'partition'. When all coowners
get separated, it is a partition. Separation of share/s
refers to a division where only one or only a few among several
co-owners/coparceners get separated, and others continue to be
joint or continue to hold the remaining property jointly without
division by metes and bounds. For example, where four brothers
owning a property divide it among themselves by metes and
bounds, it is a partition. But if only one brother wants to get his
share separated and other three brothers continue to remain joint,
there is only a separation of the share of one brother.”
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
PRESENT:
The Hon’ble Justice Subrata Talukdar
FMA 273 of 1985
Bina Ghosh vs  Mohanlal Ghosh 
Judgment on : 15/07/2016
Citation: AIR 2017(NOC) 219 Cal
Print Page

Whether power of attorney executed outside India can be impounded after expiry of period specified in statute?

 It is a well settled proposition of law, when a statute

prescribes a particular manner for dealing with a situation, the


same will have to be considered in accordance with the said

provision of law.    By incorporating three months' period in

Sec.18 of the Act, I am of the considered opinion that, it is not

without any meaning, purpose or purport. Obviously, when a

document is executed outside the country, a time limit is

prescribed to produce the same for affixing with stamp, with

the obvious intention of avoiding any manipulation or other

extraneous circumstances, especially for the reason that the

executant is a person residing outside the country. Therefore,

I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P3 order passed by the

1st respondent is in accordance with law, and therefore I do not

find any reason to interfere with the said order exercising the

power conferred on this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT:

           MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

      26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016
                  WP(C).No. 26645 of 2016 (E)
               

            THOMAS C. KUNJACHAN,
            Vs

          THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM,
           Citation: AIR 2017 (NOC) 216 kerala
Print Page