Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD)
Court Fees Act, 1870 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Section 6A |
Valuation in Partition suit—
|
Ajiruddin Vs. Rahman Fakir. (1911) | 13 DLR (SC) 19 |
Section 6(2) |
Provisions for payment of deficit Court fee—
|
Begum Sultana Mazid and others Syedul Islam | 10 MLR (AD) 186 |
Section 7 (VA) |
Partition suit—Minor ousted from possession—His title not extinguished till the lapse of three years after attainment of majority even though 12 years passed after dispossession—Suit for partition filed after. one year of attainment of majority—Suit competent without a prayer for declaration of title—Only advalorem court-fees is to be paid—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 6 and 28, Art. 144. Sanjib Kumar Bose and another Vs. Syed Sharnsuddih and anr.; 1 BLD (AD)311 |
Sanjib Kumar Bose and another Vs. Syed Sharnsuddih and anr.; | 1 BLD (AD) 311 |
Section 7 (iv) (C) 8C and |
Section 7 (iv) (C) 8C and Article 17(iii) of schedule II
|
Miah A.M. Noor Vs. Abu Naser Ahmed; | 2 BLD (AD) 97 |
Section 7- IV(c) |
Advalorem fee to be paid for cancellation of document-
|
Sufia Khanom Vs. Faizunnessa. | 39 DLR (AD) 46 |
Section 7 |
For cancellation of document advalorem court fee payable—
|
39 DLR (AD) 46 | |
Section 8(c) |
Held: we are of the view that the trial court shall be at liberty to consider the matter of valuation of the suit property at the time of trial of the suit and shall pass necessary orders as deemed fit according to law as to payment of Court fees, if any by the plaintiff. Md. Saimuddin Vs. Amjad Ali & Ors 16 BLT (AD) 74. ....View Full Judgment |
Md. Saimuddin Vs. Amjad Ali & Ors | 16 BLT (AD) 74 |
Section 35A and Schedule I |
Court Fees—Levy of—Whether after the substitution of schedule I of the
Court Fees Act in 1981 provision of section 35A of the Court Fees Act
providing for reducing or increasing by 15% of the advalorem court fees is
applicable—Section 35A is very much there in the statute and its
provision is not inconsistent with Schedule I of 1981—It must be acted
upon unless it is found that it has been repealed by necessary
implication—But it is a settled law that the Court shall presume against
repeal of a statute by necessary implication—If section 35A is read along
with all the relevant schedules starting from 1960 till 1981 it will be
clear that the intention of the legislature was to super impose the
provision of section 35A upon the amounts of advalorem court fee as shown
in the schedule which may be amended from time to time—
|
Sonali Bank, Local Office, Dhaka Vs. Gazi Abdur Rashid and others; | 7 BLD (AD) 269 |
Section 35A |
Interpretation of statute—Repeal and reenactment—Whether by amendment and substitution of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act in 1981 there is repeal and reenactment— Whether section 8(1) of the General Clauses act will apply—By Finance Act of 1981 Schedule I of Court Fees Act has been amended and substituted in place of old schedule—Legally it amounts to the same thing as saying that the old schedule has been repealed and re-enacted with modification—Section 35A of the Court Fees Act is included and contemplated within the meaning of any other enactment’—In the instant.case Finance Act of 198 1 or any other law does not speak of any different intention that reference to schedule I in section 35A shall not be construed as reference to the re-enacted schedule lof 1981. Sonali Bank, Local office, Dhaka Vs.Gazi Abdur Rashid and others; 7 BLD (AD)269 |
Sonali Bank, Local office, Dhaka Vs.Gazi Abdur Rashid and others; | 7 BLD (AD) 269 |