9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 1117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l District Judge, dated July 24, 2001, by which a suit filed by the respondent herein for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,703.28 and delivery of ST 1 forms for a value of Rs. 13,811.97 or in the alternative to the ST 1 forms for the amount of sales tax at the rate of 7 per cent was decreed. The petitioner/defendant contested the suit on a variety of grounds fully taken note by both the courts below and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mandatory and the trial court was not justified in entertaining the suit/plaint, once the court fee paid was insufficient/deficient. In support of her contentions the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sahara India Airlines Ltd. v. R.A. Singh reported as (1997) 43 DRJ 217. On the facts of the said case, the court hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the contingency that the defendant could have handed over ST 1 form and if he failed to do so the amount towards the sales tax was payable. The trial court while passing the decree had directed the plaintiff to pay proper court fee on the balance amount so decreed in that behalf within one month and that seems to be a permissible course. In my view no fault can be found with the order on this co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch is quite unusual and is not in accordance with prevalent practice. It may do so but a plaintiff who incurs expenditure in connection with the recovery of his claim is entitled to claim the said expenses and should not be deprived of the legitimate expenses in that behalf. 5.. Having considered the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of law has been ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
