Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    Case Xi Ravindra Kumar Parashar and Others V State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh and Another Facts

    Uploaded by

    Harsha Ammineni
    The petitioners filed an election petition challenging the results of a State Bar Council election and deposited Rs. 10,000 in court fees as required by the election rules. The Tribunal rejected the petition holding that each petitioner must pay Rs. 10,000 in fees, for a total of Rs. 50,000. The petitioners appealed. The issue was whether the election rules required each petitioner to pay court fees of Rs. 10,000 for a single petition filed jointly. The court examined the language of the rules and found that rule 31(2) does not provide for payment of court fees by each petitioner, but rather payment of Rs. 10,000 for each petition. As the petitioners jointly filed a single petition

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Xi Ravindra Kumar Parashar and Others V State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh and Another Facts

    Uploaded by

    Harsha Ammineni
    19 views3 pages
    The petitioners filed an election petition challenging the results of a State Bar Council election and deposited Rs. 10,000 in court fees as required by the election rules. The Tribunal rejected the petition holding that each petitioner must pay Rs. 10,000 in fees, for a total of Rs. 50,000. The petitioners appealed. The issue was whether the election rules required each petitioner to pay court fees of Rs. 10,000 for a single petition filed jointly. The court examined the language of the rules and found that rule 31(2) does not provide for payment of court fees by each petitioner, but rather payment of Rs. 10,000 for each petition. As the petitioners jointly filed a single petition

    Original Title

    ios8

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners filed an election petition challenging the results of a State Bar Council election and deposited Rs. 10,000 in court fees as required by the election rules. The Tribunal rejected the petition holding that each petitioner must pay Rs. 10,000 in fees, for a total of Rs. 50,000. The petitioners appealed. The issue was whether the election rules required each petitioner to pay court fees of Rs. 10,000 for a single petition filed jointly. The court examined the language of the rules and found that rule 31(2) does not provide for payment of court fees by each petitioner, but rather payment of Rs. 10,000 for each petition. As the petitioners jointly filed a single petition

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    19 views3 pages

    Case Xi Ravindra Kumar Parashar and Others V State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh and Another Facts

    Uploaded by

    Harsha Ammineni
    The petitioners filed an election petition challenging the results of a State Bar Council election and deposited Rs. 10,000 in court fees as required by the election rules. The Tribunal rejected the petition holding that each petitioner must pay Rs. 10,000 in fees, for a total of Rs. 50,000. The petitioners appealed. The issue was whether the election rules required each petitioner to pay court fees of Rs. 10,000 for a single petition filed jointly. The court examined the language of the rules and found that rule 31(2) does not provide for payment of court fees by each petitioner, but rather payment of Rs. 10,000 for each petition. As the petitioners jointly filed a single petition

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    CASE XI

    Ravindra Kumar Parashar and others v State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh and
    another1

    FACTS:

    Advocates & Judges and its State Bar Council Election Rules, 2006, rr. 31(2), 31(2) .There
    was Bar council election . Question is regarding the Validity of Court fee deposit & Election
    for State Bar Council was held and results were declared, electing 25 members of State Bar
    Council. Petitioners, being dissatisfied by declaration of result, filed a combined petition
    before Tribunal under provisions of r. 31 (1) and (2) of 2006 Rules. Petitioners deposited a
    sum of Rs. 10,000/- as Court fees as prescribed u/r. 31(2) of 2006 Rules with election
    petition. Tribunal rejected petition holding that each petitioner is required to deposit Rs.
    10,000/- as Court fees, in total Rs. 50,000/-

    Petitioners were aggrieved by above order. So, Hence instant petition.

    ISSUE:

    Whether R. 31(2) of 2006 Rules does provide for payment of Court fee by each of petitioner
    but payment of Rs. 10,000/- on each petition or not?

    REASONING:

     It is a settled law that, any voter may contest validity of election of a candidate
    declared to Bar Council by petition signed by him and supported by an affidavit and
    delivered to Secretary personally or sent by registered post so as to reach him within
    15 days from date of publication of results of election. Petition shall be accompanied
    by fees of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand), which shall be paid in cash or shall be
    sent by Money Order. In case, it is sent by Money Order. Money Order Receipt shall
    be attached to petition. Fees shall not be refundable.
     On bare perusal of r. 31(2) of 2006 Rules, it appears that petition shall be
    accompanied by a fees of Rs. 10,000/-. It is not dependent on number of petitioners.
    Tribunal has taken a view that u/r. 31(1) of 2006 Rules provides that any voter may
    contest validity of election of a candidate by filing petition to be accompanied by fees
    of Rs. 10,000/-.

    1
    2009 Indlaw CTH 252
     Since as many as 5 petitioners have jointly filed Election Petition, each of them is
    required to pay Court fees of Rs. 10,000/- each. There was a clear provision to pay
    Court fee by each individual in a single writ petition filed by more than one
    individual. In case on hand, u/r. 31(2) of 2006 Rules does not provide for same. R.
    31(1) of 2006 Rules is an enabling provision wherein each voter is enabled to file a
    petition challenging validity of election of a candidate.

    CONCLUSION:

    We can conclude that the R. 31(2) of 2006 Rules does not provide for payment of Court fee
    by each of petitioner but payment of Rs. 10,000/- on each petition. There is a difference
    between 'petitioner' and 'petition'. In one petition, there may be several petitioners. It is
    clearly specified that each petition shall be accompanied by a fees of Rs. 10,000/-. No other
    interpretation of above provision is possible. There is a well settled principle of interpretation
    of statute that if provision of an Act is clear and unambiguous and does not lead to absurdity
    or anomaly, literal interpretation has to be resorted to. Petition allowed.

    CASE XII
    STATE OF KERALA VS. KURIYAN VARGHESE AND ORS.2
    FACTS
    The appeal has been filed under Section 5(11) of the High Court Act by the State aggrieved
    by the judgment dismissing an appeal by it as filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
    Act read with Order XLI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When the appeal came up
    for admission before a Division Bench, the learned Judges entertained a doubt as to whether
    an appeal under Section 5(11) of the High Court Act would lie against the decree passed by a
    Single Judge to a Division Bench and referred the appeals to a Full Bench. In support of the
    appeal, the Appellant relied on a decision of the Full Bench of this Court which held that such
    an appeal is maintainable.
    ISSUES:
    Whether Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act is an enabling provision?
    REASONING:
    The right of appeal becomes a substantive right. Therefore when Section 54
    conferred the right of appeal must be understood only on the terms of the provision
    conferring the right of appeal. It is difficult to accept the position that Section 54 of
    2
    MANU/KE/0805/2001
    the Land Acquisition Act is merely an enabling section and was enacted in order to
    confer a right of appeal to His Majesty in Council, now to the Supreme Court. It
    must be noted that Section 54 of the Act was retained and amended by Act 19 of
    1921, inspite of the amendment brought to Section 26 by adding Sub-section (2) to
    it and creating a fiction that an award on a reference to the Court shall be deemed to
    be a decree as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure inviting the consequences that
    may arise therefrom.
    HELD:
    The court came to that conclusion in its view that Section 54 was merely an enabling section
    and was enacted in order to confer a right of appeal to His Majesty in Council which right
    was not earlier available. Section 54 of the Act is the section that confers the right of appeal
    and it is not merely an enabling provision.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy