Section 3 : Levy of fees in High Courts on their original sides
2020 PLD 736 SUPREME-COURT
ASAD ALI VS The BANK OF PUNJAB
Ss.3 & 5—Court-fees Act (VII of 1870), Chap. II (Ss.3 to 5)—High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Vol. 5, Chap. I, Judicial Business, Pt. A (a), Rr. 1(a)(iii) & (v) & 9(i)(d) & (e)—Appeal, filing of—Deficiency—Office objection that court fee and revenue stamps were deficient—If deficiency was pointed out by the office in respect of court fee and time was granted for making good the deficiency but the party failed to make good the deficiency within the time specified by the office, question of limitation might then arise and discretion to extend further time would be refused if the conduct of the appellant was considered to be contumacious and the appeal would be rejected.
2020 CLC 442 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
PROJECT DIRECTOR NHA VS NAYYAR ZAMAN
S.3 & Sched. I— Levy of court-fee—Ad valorem basis— Connotation— Term ‘ad valorem’ has not been defined by Court Fees Act, 1870 however, as per its dictionary meaning, ad valorem means ‘according to valuation’— Ad valorem duties are always estimated at a certain percentage on valuation of property as opposed to fixed or specific duties.
2017 PLD 207 SUPREME-COURT
PROVINCE OF SINDH VS Haji RAZZAQ
Ss. 3, 4 & 6—Sindh Courts Act (VII of 1926) [since repealed], S.8—High Court of West Pakistan (Establishment) Order (XIX of 1955), Art.5—High Court Establishment Order (P.O. 8 of 1970), Art.3(1)(c)—Balochistan and Sindh (High Courts) Order (P.O. No. 6 of 1976), Art.3(b)—Establishment of West Pakistan Act (XIX of 1955), S.10(1)—Payment of court fee on suits on the original side of the former High Court of West Pakistan (Karachi Bench) now Sindh High Court, and on appeals against the judgments and orders passed on the original side of that High Court—Original civil jurisdiction of Karachi Bench of the West Pakistan High Court was special jurisdiction and not ‘ordinary civil jurisdiction’ within the scope of S. 4 of the Court Fees Act, 1870—Court-fee was payable on an appeal from a Single Judge of the Karachi Bench of the West Pakistan High Court inasmuch as the earlier position was continued intact by virtue of S.10(1) of Establishment of West Pakistan Act, 1955—Court fees which were levied in the Chief Court of Sindh on appeal continued to be levied on appeal from suits on the original side of the Sindh High Court—View taken by Waheeduddin Ahmed, J., in Firdous Trading Corporation v. Japan Cotton and General Trading Co. Ltd. (PLD 1961 Karachi 565) as to the payment of court fee under the Court Fees Act, 1870 on suits filed in the original side of the former High Court of West Pakistan (Karachi Bench), now Sindh High Court, and on appeals against the judgments and orders passed on the original side of that High Court stated the correct position of law.
2005 MLD 1677 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
STAHEL HONG KONG LTD. VS GENERAL IMPEX CORPORATION
—S.3 & Sched. First—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.20—Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act (VI of 1937), Ss 3 & 5(2)—Sindh Chief Court Rules, (O.S.), R.294—Levy of ad valorem court-fee—In order to levy ad valorem court-fee, provision of S
1997 CLC 1301 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AL-AHRAM BUILDERS LIMITED VS PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS’ HOUSING AUTHORITY
Court Fees Act 1870 S.3—Alternate relief for specified damages claimed by plaintiff in his suit against defendant—Plaintiff having prayed for alternate decree for specified amount as damages, his application to allow him to pay additional court-fee was allowed and he was allowed to pay additional court-fee in view of his alternate prayer and to amend his plaint in terms thereof.
1991 SCMR 920 SUPREME-COURT
PROVINCE OF SINDH VS RAZZAQ
Court Fees Act 1870 —-S. 3—Payment of court-fees on suits on the original side of the former High Court of West Pakistan (Karachi Bench) now Sindh High Court, and on appeals against the judgments and orders passed on the original side of that High Court—View taken in the case of Firdous Trading Corporation v. Japan Cotton and General Trading Co. Ltd. P L D 1961 Kar. 565 stated the correct position of law in that respect.
1985 CLC 1969 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NAIK MUHAMMAD VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VEHARI
Court Fees Act 1870 —Ss. 3, 25, 26, 28 & 30–Court-fees–Purpose and object stated–All fees to be collected by stamps which should be impressed or adhesive or partly impressed and partly adhesive–No document which had to bear stamp could be of any validity unless and until properly stamped–No document requiring stamp should be filed or acted upon in any proceedings until stamp had been cancelled–Stamps being manifestation of court-fees as having been paid–Plaintiffs by depositing amount for purchasing stamps with treasury and getting endorsement on challan to that effect that stamps were not available, held, did whatever was within their power in circumstances– 61ein purpose of court-fees being to secure revenue to State, deposit of requisite money for purchase of stamp by plaintiffs should be deemed to have satisfied requirement of Court Fees Act, 1870–Failure to supply requisite stamps within time could not be placed upon plaintiffs in circumstances.
1981 CLC 1715 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
HABIB SULTAN VS ALLAH DITTA
100, O. VII, r. 11 and Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 3, Second Sched. [as amended by Punjab Finance Act (XI V of 1973)] Court-fee–Deficiency-Appellant assisted by counsel]-Plea of illiteracy of little avail and ignorance of law amending Court Fees Act, held, no excuse.
1980 PLD 492 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
YOUSAF A. MITHA VS ABOO BAKER
7 (iv)(c) & Art. 17(iii) (1) & (2)-Defendants shareholders in alleged violation of an article of memo. of association of Company entering into agreement with defendant No. 3 for sale of their shares-Plaintiff on refusal of defendants to cancel a4reement filing suit praying for ration of such agreement Was illegal and for injunction restraining defendants from enforcing such agreement Suit, held, a suit for declaration with consequential relief and therefore covered by S. 7 (iv) and not Art. 17(iii) of Second Schedule
1975 PLD 944 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
RAZAK VS USMAN
Ss. 3, 4 & 6-Court-fee, levy of-Expression “Court hereinbefore mentioned” in S.6-Refers to Courts specified in S. 3, i.e., High Courts and draws distinction between High Courts and subordinate Courts-Court-fees on suits and appeals in subordinate Courts-To be paid under S. 6 at rates prescribed in Schedules-Court-fees on suits and appeals in High Courts-Governed by S. 3 only, appeals falling under S. 4, cl. 3.
1961 PLD 565 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
FIRDOUS TRADING CORPORATION AND OTHERS VS JAPAN COTTON & GENERAL TRADING CO. LTD.
Court Fees Act 1870 S. 3 (as amended by Adaptation of Central Acts and Ordinances Order, 1949)-Practice re payment of Court fees, in original suits, and in appeals, prevailing in Chief Court of Sind, at time of amendment-Continued intact by adaptation.