STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus MISHRI LAL TARACHAND LODHA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1964] 5 S.C.R. 230 · Decided: 24-10-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

230 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964] 
1963 
relating to tax on profits of business" in paragraph 
2 of the Removal of Difficulties Order. We hold 
The Mahalaxmi that the High Court has rightly decided that the de-
Mills Ltd. 
preciation availed of by the assessee under the Bhav-
v. 
nagar War Profits Act was a deductible amount in 
The Commission- computing the written down value of the assets. 
er of Income-Tax 
All h 
1 
h 
C'. 
d" 
· 
d · h 
B 
b 
t e appea s are t ere1ore 1sm1sse wit costs. 
om ay 
There will be one set of hearing fee in all the appeals. 
Das Gupta J. 
1963 
October 24 
Appeal dismissed. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
MISHRI LAL TARACHAND LODHA AND 
OTHERS 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
K. SUBBA RAO, 
K. N. 
WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL JJ.) 
Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (36 of 1959), Art. I, Sch. I-
" Value of the subject-matter in dispute in appeal-Construction of 
-A.ward of interest pendente lite noi specifically challenged-Court 
fees, if payable. 
The plaintiff-respondent No. I instituted a suit for recovery 
of the amount lent to the defendant with interest upto the date of 
the suit. His claim was decreed in a sum of Rs. 13,033-6-6 with 
future interest from the date of suit till realisation at 4 % per annum 
on a sum of Rs. 10,120. 
Against this decree the defendant appealed 
to the High Court and valued the appeal at Rs. 13,033-6-6 and 
paid the requisite court fee on that amount. 
All his grounds 
of appeal related to the merits of the plaintiff's claims and did 
not deal with the correctness of the trial court awarding future 
pendente lite interest on the rate at which it was to be calculated. 
The Taxing Officer directed the defendant to pay the deficit court 
fee of Rs. 70 on the memorandum of appeal as he was of the opinion 
that the appeal was against the whole decree and that the amount 
of value of the subject-matter in dispute for purpose of court fee 
was Rs. 14,036.SOnP. as the amount of interest from the date of the 
suit till the date of the decree on Rs.10,120 came to Rs. l,033.40nP. 
5 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
231 
The defendant challenged this order in revision before the High 
1963 
Court under s. 5(2) of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959. The 
High Court set aside the order of the Taxing Officer and the learned State of Mahara-
Judge expressed the view: 
shtra 
"The subject matter in appeal is the real matter in dispute 
between the parties and not something which must stand or 
. v .. 
fall with the decision on it. In other words, it must mean the 
Mishri Lal 
right which is in dispute between the parties". 
Tarachand Lodha 
In this Court the appellant State challenged the correctness 
of the said view of the High Court and relied mainly on the construc-
tion put by courts on expression "value or subject-matter in dispute" 
in the relevant provisions relating to the High Court's giving leave to 
appeal to the Privy Council. 
Held: (i) That the expression 'amount or value of the subject-
matter in dispute' in art. l of Schedule 1 of the Bombay Court-
fees Act, cannot be construed in the light of the construction plac-
ed on a similar expression for the purposes of considering whether 
the case had come within the rule allowing the High Courts to 
, < 
give leave for appeal to the Privy Council. The Act is a taxing 
statute and its provisions have to be construed strictly, in favour 
of the subject-litigant. 
Gooroopersad Khoond v. Juggutchunder, 8 M.I.A. 166 and 
Doorga Doss Chowdry v. Rarnanauth Chowdry, 8 M.I.A. 262, 
held in applicable. 
(ii) Claims not based on any asserted right but dependent on 
the decision of the disputed right and reliefs in regard to which 
are in the discretion of the court do not come within the purview 
of the expression 'subject-matter in dispute in plaint or memo 
of appeal' . 
• 
,-.1 
(iii) The amount of pendente lite interest decreed is not to 
be included in the 'amount or value of the subject-matter in dispute 
in appeal' for the purposes of art. l of Sch. I of the Act unless 
the appellant specifically challenges the correctness of the decree 
for the amount of interest pendente lite independently of the claim 
to set aside that decree. 
In the present case, the decree in that respect was not speci-
fically challenged and therefore the view of the High Court must be 
held to be correct. 
Mitthu Lalv. Charneli, 57 All. 71, Keolapati Mst. v. B.N. Varma, 
I.L.R. 12 Luck. 466 and Ashutosh v. Satindra Kumar, 54 C.W.N. 
380, referred to

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.