Mrs Shiv Kumari Bansal v. Sandeep Kumar
Case brief
What is this about?
on’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.H Mr. Karan…
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
AO 179/2016
Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
Mr. Karan Anand, Advocate, for the appellant/applicant.
Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate, for the respondent.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Although the parties have entered into compromise and this fact has been admitted even by the learned Counsel of the respondent, but as regards the directions of the Court below to deposit the requisite court fees, I think the appellant cannot be dispensed with from depositing the court fees for seeking declaration from the Court.
This is an altogether a different aspect that if the mutual dispute is settled in terms of compromise through the Lok Adalat, then the plaintiff may move to the appropriate authorities for refund of the deposited court feels.
This appeal stands disposed of in above terms.
Miscellaneous application (CLMA 8078/2017) also stands disposed of accordingly.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 12.7.2017
Coram
Servesh Kumar Gupta
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Uttarakhand HC
- Decided on
- · July
- Registered
- Case no.
- AO/179/2016
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court