Court fees under tortious act
Raman
(Querist) 02 November 2016
This query is : Resolved
Sir,
The suit for compensatory damages in defamation case filed under the law of torts, whether the Plaintiff is laiable to pay the amount of court fees w.r.t amount claimed.?
If yes, I read the judgment passed by the civil court senior Division, who passed the order of reputed news channel to pay Rs 100 crores to the Retired Judge of supreme Court for showing his photograph in News Channel. If so, neither the Civil Judge has the power to decide the case outside the pecuniary jurisdiction?
Please note I am reposting as I have attached the copy of Judgment
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 02 November 2016
Academic query, state material facts of the problem if any.
How are you concerned / related with the query?
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 02 November 2016
No attachment found.
J K Agrawal
(Expert) 02 November 2016
Court Fee is matter of STATE and it may be different in each state. However, in generally it is as per the amount claimed.
In writ petition there is almost no court fee. it is generally less than 100/-. A judgment of crores possible in Writ Petition without court fee.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 03 November 2016
May get benefit from the advice from expert J K Agrawal.
Raman
(Querist) 05 November 2016
I have attached the copy of Judgment, but unfortunately it not visible , due to technical error of the web site
I want to say it was not the writ petition, but the suit filed by the lawyer on behalf of Retd suprem court judge for claiming damages by telecating the photograph in some scam in which the suit was allowed for 100 crores in favor of the plaintiff
My query was that, since it was the civil suit( Not writ petition) and Plaintiff has lead evidences.
In such cases, where the claim is about 100 crores, so whether court fees of around 5 crores is maintainable at the time of institution of suit?
Raman
(Querist) 05 November 2016
Relevant extract of the judgment are
"The plaintiff had instructed his expersonal secretary Mr xxxx to call
the office of the defendant no. 1 which he did on the same day, although it has been
denied by the defendants. Thereafter, the plaintiff patiently granted sufficient time,
however, no remedial corrective steps were taken. So plaintiff wrote a strong letter
on 15.09.2008 in which he demanded a written public apology and compensatory
damages of Rs. 50 crores from the defendants. Observing the casual and callous
attitude of the defendant no. 2 the plaintiff by his letter dt. 27.09.2008 demanded an
enhanced sum of Rs. 100 crores.
50. Under the circumstances, from the evidence documents and citations
relied upon by both the parties, the plaintiff is entitled to damage for Rs.100 Crores.
Plaintiff has also claimed interest @ 12% p.a. on the damages awarded. However,
plaintiff has not shown as to how he is entitled for interest, more so for the interest
@12% p.a. Hence, prayer of the plaintiff about the interest can not be granted.
51. I have carefully gone through the rulings relied upon by the plaintiff and
defendants. During the course of arguments plaintiff has relied upon the following
judgments28
Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd. V. Man ock(2007)HCA 60 (13
December 2007, AIR 1962 Orissa 115,AIR 1989 Supreme Court 714, (1998)2
Supreme Court Cases 192, AIR 1957 Supreme Court 857,AIR 1975 Rajasthan 40,
Mr. Umnar Abid Khan Vs. Vincy Gonsalves,Mr. Chandrakant Ghorpade,etc.
2010(1)ALL MR 74, AIR 1970 Bombay 424. The defendant has also relied on the
rulings reported in AIR 1972 Madras 398, 1969EQ Bom041, 1984 EQ
SC0370,1986 EQ BoMO146,1984EQ BOMO211,AIR 1918 Madras 700,AIR
1937 Nagpur 354
52. In view of above discussions and my findings on the aforementioned
issues, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to the damages alongwith the costs of the
suit, as prayed for. Hence, I answer the issue accordingly and proceed to pass
following order. Order
(1). The suit is decreed with costs, as under.
(2). The defendants jointly and severally shall pay to the
plaintiff Rs.100,00,00,000/(Rs. Hundred Crores only) as
and by way of damages for the tortious acts,omissions and
commissions.
(3). Decree be drawn accordingly"
J K Agrawal
(Expert) 06 November 2016
The Judgment appears not as per law.
The plaintiff will get or not get Rs 100 Crore is matter of future but presently the plaintiff has to pay around Rs 5 crore.
Such type of 100 crore Judgment can be challanged by paying Rs 20 Court fee in Rajasthan.
You are a Student of law and you should be Firm upon your study and belief which is supported by reasons. You are not bound by such a bogus judgments.
It may be amazing but it is true that even the Supreme Court Judgment is not binding upon THE ADVOCATES. The reason is very simple that if advocates are bound to follow the Supreme Court Judgment with a closed eyes, it would never possible to get over-ruled any Supreme Judgment.
Consider the caliber of ADVOCATES.
