Section 8 : Fee on memorandum of appeal against order relating to compensation
2020 CLC 442 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
PROJECT DIRECTOR NHA VS NAYYAR ZAMAN
- 8— Court fee, computation of— Memorandum of appeal— Procedure— Provisions of section 8 of Court Fees Act, 1870 by itself are not a charging section and it only provides mode and manner in which court fee is to be computed— Amount of fee payable on a memorandum of appeal would be computed according to difference between amount awarded and amount claimed by appellants.
2020 CLC 442 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
PROJECT DIRECTOR NHA VS NAYYAR ZAMAN
- 8—Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), Ss. 18, 21 & 54— Deficient court fee—Acquiring agency was aggrieved of compensation enhanced in favour of landowners by Referee Court—Plea raised by landowners was that proper court fee was not affixed by acquiring agency for filing of appeal—Validity—Object of Court Fees Act, 1870 was to secure revenues for benefit of State and provisions thereof were not to be used for non-suiting a party on account of some technical/procedural defects or omissions—Matter of court-fee was between State and litigant therefore, rival party could not use it as a tool to non-suit a party on failure to deposit requisite court-fee—Court-fee of only Rs. 500/- was affixed which was not in terms of provisions of S. 8 of Court Fees Act, 1870—No appeal could be dismissed on account of deficiency of court-fee unless an opportunity was provided to acquiring agency to make good said deficiency—High Court directed acquiring agency to make good deficiency of court-fee as required under the law.
1996 CLC 2002 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, BADIN VS ABDUL SHAKOOR
Court Fees Act 1870 S 8—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 156—Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), S. 54—Appeal against award—Payment of ad valorem court-fee-Non payment of court-fee within specified time—Effect—In appeal against award of Collector court-fee must be paid ad valorem on difference of amount of award and amount allowed by court—Court-fee stamp of Rs.8,613, on such amount was to be paid but only Rs.10 worth court-fee stamp had been affixed on memorandum of appeal—Appeal was, thus, instituted with deficit court-fee stamp and appellant being negligent and his conduct being contumacious, there existed no reason to show any indulgence to him by allowing further time–Subsequent payment of court-fee stamp beyond period of limitation would not render appeal as properly constituted—Appeal was, thus, barred by limitation in terms of Art. 156, Limitation Act, 1908.
1993 CLC 1391 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD RIAZ ASLAM VS MUHAMMAD AKHTAR
Court Fees Act 1870 S. 8(iv) (c) & Sched. 1, Art. 1—Avoidance of registered sale-deed—Suit for declaration—Such suit, in fact being visibly intended for cancellation of registered documents, plaint was liable to payment of ad valorem court-fee on the value of the subject-matter in dispute under Art. 1, Sched. 1 of Court Fees Act, 1870.
1984 SCMR 579 SUPREME-COURT
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, RAWALPINDI VS SABIB DAD KHAN
—- Art. 185(3)-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 149-Court-fee, deficiency in-Ground advanced before High Court that “reduction in amount of compensation awarded by Court to limit of amount for which court-fee had already been paid” but not repeated
1983 PLD 1 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
COLLECTOR QUETA SUB-DIVISION VS SARDAR QASIM
— S. 8-Applicability of section-Section 8 of Court Fees Act, 1870– Held, purports to apply to all appeals against an order relating to compensation whoever appellant may be and thus covers Government as well.-[Interpretation of statutes].
1980 CLC 621 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHADIM HUSSAIN AGHA VS MUHAMMAD ASHRAF
- 8-Appeal against ex parte ejectment order-Court-fee-Memorandum of appeal filed before first appellate Court showing appeal having been directed against ex parte decree-Appellant, held, bound to value his appeal as appeal against a decree and pay court-fee accordingly.-[Appeal (civil)].
1980 CLC 286 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NASEEM SADIQ VS GHULAM GHAUSE
— S. 8-Deficiency in court-fee-Court duty bound to see appeal presented by affixing proper court-fee-Office accepting appeal without raising any objection as to insufficiency of court-fee Appellants, held, cannot be condemned.–[Duty of Court].
1972 PLD 164 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
NUR AHMAD VS MUHAMMAD JAN KHAN AND 3 OTHERS
Court Fees Act 1870 Ss. 8 & 28—-Memorandum of appeal, affixed with deficient court-fee stamps, inadvertently entertained by office-Defect in deficiency of court fee remedied under S. 28 by calling upon appellant to make good deficiency.
1969 PLD 803 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT
MRS. MOMTAZ MALLIK VS THE TAXING OFFICER (REGISTRAR HIGH COURT), DACCA
Court Fees Act 1870 S. 8, Art. 1, Sched. ‘ J and Art. II, Sched. II read with East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act (III of 1948), Ss. S & 7( f )-Appeal against order relating to compensation-Computation of court fee-Section 8, Court Fees Act,’ 1870 not by itself a charging section=Cannot be considered in isolation, ignoring other provisions of Act—Expression “not otherwise provided for in this Act” in Art. 1,’ Sched. I Excludes application of Art. 1, Sched. 1 to cases otherwise provided for in the Act-Section 8 read with exception to Art. 1, Sched. I and Art. II, Sched. II-Not an absolute enactment of universal application and does not provide an inflexible rule=Arbitrator’s award under East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act, 1948-Neither a decree nor order having force of a decree-
1969 PLD 30 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
AZAD GOVERNMENT VS ABDULLAH AND OTHERS
—–S. 18 and Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 8 – Reference – Appeal – Court fee – Single reference filed by Government against all inhabitants and only one award made by Collector about whole village-Question of separate appeals by effected persons doe
1966 PLD 753 SUPREME-COURT
MRS. MOMTAZ MALLIK VS TAXING OFFICER
- 8 & Art. 11, Sched. II Interpretation of provisions not free from difficulty-Case remanded by Supreme Court “to have benefit of view of High Court” before deciding appeal on merits.
1965 PLD 26 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
MATWALI KHAN VS SHAH ZAMAN
Ss. 7 (iv) (c) & 8 – Suit for declaration and injunction-Suit involving consequential relief within meaning of S. 7 (iv) (c)-Value for jurisdictional purposes—–Same as value fixed for court-fee-Party un-authorisedly changing valuation for jurisdictional purposes by subsequent amendment of plaint allowed for another specific purpose-Jurisdictional value for determining forum of appeal to be value fixed for court fee in original unamended plaint.
1963 PLD 10 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
GHULAM RASOOL AND OTHERS VS THE STATE
—-S. 54 and Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 8 read with 7 (iv)(c) and Sch. II, Art. 17-Provision of S. 8, Court Fees Act, 1870 overrides general provisions of Sch. II, Art. 17 of the Act-Award of compensation under Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Court-fee
1960 PLD 665 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN VS QADIR BUX
Court Fees Act 1870 —S. 8, Sch. I, Art. 1, Sch. II, Art. 17 (iv)-Court-fee on Government appeal from decree of Court under Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)-Payable ad valorem under Sch. 1, Art. I-Analogy from S. 8-Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), S. 26 (2)-Secy. of State v. Basawa Singh 57 P R 1913 (Civil) dissented from.