Gujarat High Court High Court

Gujarat vs Dineshchandra on 1 July, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Gujarat vs Dineshchandra on 1 July, 2011
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/7983/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7983 of 2011
 

 
=======================================================


 

GUJARAT
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

DINESHCHANDRA
R AGRAWAL & 4 - Respondent(s)
 

=======================================================
Appearance : 
MR
RITURAJ M MEENA for Petitioner(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 1
- 5. 
======================================================= 

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 01/07/2011
 

ORAL
ORDER

Present
petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 226 and
227 of the Constitution
of India challenging the impugned order passed
below Exh.16 in Special Civil Suit No.165 of 1999 dated 28.02.2011
with regard to payment of court fees on the grounds set out in the
petition.

Heard
learned counsel, Mr.Rituraj Meena for the petitioner.

Learned
counsel, Mr.Meena has tried to emphasize that for years, the deficit
court fees has not been paid and the application is allowed only with
deposit a cost of Rs.500/-, which is incorrect and that amount has
been used. Therefore, the impugned oder is perverse and erroneous.

Though
this petition has been filed by the petitioner-Corporation, which is
Government Corporation, it is required to be mentioned that whether
the proper court fees is paid or not is ultimately the function of
the administration and the Court Fees Inspector will take care and
necessary procedure is provided under the Court Fees Act. Therefore,
the objection, which has raised by the Government Corporation by
spending such amount on litigation is not justified to say least.
Judicial notice can be taken that Corporation have also in fact not
taken steps for effective recovery of the dues or the amount advanced
and at time, they have also remained not only negligent but also
lethargic. Therefore, this kind of petition cannot be entertained and
deserves to be dismissed in limine. As it is not the function of this
Court with regard to payment of court fees and as it will not affect
the Corporation if the deficit court fees is there, the Court Fees
Inspector will take proper steps.

In
the circumstances, the present petition stands dismissed in limine.

(RAJESH
H.SHUKLA, J.)

/patil

   

Top