P.M. ASHWATHANARAYANA SETTY & ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 155 · Decided: 22-09-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

P.M. ASHWATHANARAYANA SETIY & ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 22, 1988 
[R.S. PATHAK, CJ., S. NATARAJAN AND 
M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.] 
Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959-Ad valorem Court fee without 
any upper limit had to be paid on grants of probate etc. discriminatory. 
Constitution of India. 1950: Court fees-Levy of uniform 
ad valorem Levy without prescribing any upper limit-Whether alters 
character of levy and converts if from 'fee' into 'tax'-Whether legal and 
permissible. 
Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958--Rajasthan 
Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961-Bombay Court Fees Act, 
1959-Constitutional validity of. 
'Tax' and 'fee'-Distinction between governmental agencies 
imposing fee to justify impost and its quantum as return for special 
services. 
Courts cannot compel State to bring forth legislation to implement 
and effectuate Directive Principles-Doubt as to constitutionality of 
law-To be resolved in favour of constitutionality of the law. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958--Section 20 
and Article 1 Schedule I Court Fees-Imposition of-Uniform 
F 
ad valorem levy at rate of Re.1for every Rs.10-0fthe amount or value 
of the subject matter without prescribing any upper limit-Whether 
valid, legal and constitutional. 
Rajasthan Court Fees And Suits Valuation Act, 1961: Section 20 
and Article 1. Schedule I-Court fees-Uniform advalorem impost of G 
Rs.5-For every Rs.100-0r part thereof without any upper limit-
Whether valid, legal and constitutional. 
These three groups of special leave petitions/appeals/writ 
petitions concern the policy ·and legality of the levy of Court fees under 
the provisions of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits valnation Act, 
H 
155 
156 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
1958, the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 and the 
A Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. 
The petitioners from Rajast!tan had challen~ed before the High 
Court the constitutional validity of the provisions of section 20 read 
with Article 1 Schedule I of the Rajasthan Act which prescribed and 
a authorised the levy of court-fees on an uniform ad valorem basis with-
out the prescription of any upper limit. The High Court upheld the 
constitutionality of the impugned provision . 
. ' 
The appeal and the special leave petitions from Karnataka are 
' 
directed against the common order of the Karnataka High Court 
upholding the validity of the corresponding provision of the Karnataka 
C Act which similarly imposed an ad-valorem court fee without pres-
cribing any upper limit. The writ petitions have challenged the provi-
sion directly in this Court. 
So far as. the Bombay Act is concerned, the State of Maharashtra 
D has come up in appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench of the 
Bombay High Court affirming the order of the learned Single Judge 
striking down the provisions of section 29(1) read with entry 10 of 
Schedule I of the Act in so far as they purport to prescribe an ad-
valorem court fee, without any upper limit, on grants of probate, letters 
of administrative etc., while in respect of all other suits, appeal and 
IE proceedings an upper limit of court-fee of Rs.15,000 is prescribed. The 
High Court held this pre~cription of ad-valorem court-fee without any 
upper 'Umit on this class of proceedings alone was constitutionally impermis-
sible in that it sought to single out this class of litigants. 
· 
-
It was contended on behalf of the peuuoners/appellants that (i) 
F the imposition of court fees at nearly 10% of the value of the subject 
matter in each of the courts through which the ·case sojourns1 before it 
reaches a finality would seriously detract from fairness and justness of 
the system; (ii) the exaction of ad-valorem fee uniformally at a certain 
percentage of the subject matter without an upper limit or without the 
tapering down after a certain stage onwards would negate the concept 
d of a fee and part-take of the character of a tax outside the boundaries of 
the State's !lower; (iii) the ad-valorem yardstick, which is relevant and 
appropriate .to taxation, is wholly inappropriate because the principle 
or basis or' distribution in the case of a fee should be the proportionate 
cost of services inter-se amongst the beneficiaries; (iv) in the very nature 
of the judicial process, a stage is reached beyond which there could be 
H no proportionate or progressive increase in the services rende
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.