Section 79

Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.

* * * * STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS I Act 16 of 1958.—With the reorganisation of the State on the 1st November, 1956, the several laws dealing with court fees in force in the several integrating areas are being continued to be administered. These laws differ from each other in several respects. The present Bill is intended to bring about uniformity in law as well as in the rate structure regarding the levy of court fees and suits valuation throughout the new Mysore State. Repeal and savings. SCHEDULE I SCHEDULE II SCHEDULE III It is considered desirable and advantageous to have one Act both for suits valuation and court fees and it is therefore proposed to repeal not only the Court Fees 4 Acts but also the Suits Valuation Acts in force in all Areas. Further, in view of the change over to decimal coinage the proper fees have to be fixed in terms of Naye Paise instead of Annas and Pies. The Bill is intended to secure the above-mentioned objects. (Published in Karnataka Gazette (Extraordinary) Part IV-2A, dated 14th June 1957, as No. 173 at page. 48.) II Amending Act 24 of 1958.— Not Available. III Amending Act 10 of 1964.—Certain amendments to the Mysore Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, are considered necessary. The notes on clauses given below indicate the reasons for the amendments proposed. NOTES AND CLAUSES. Clause 2.—It is considered desirable to have a definition of “Chief controlling revenue authority” on the lines of the definition of the expression inserted in the Mysore Stamp Act, 1957 by the Mysore Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1962. Clause 3.—According to section 3 of the Mysore Stamp Act, the stamp duty is not chargeable in respect of instruments executed by or on behalf of or in favour of the Government. It is considered desirable to provide for similar exemption in respect of court fees payable by the State Government and officers of the State Government in their official capacity. Clause 4.—According to sub-section (1) of section 50, in a suit as to whose value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts, a specific provision is not otherwise made in the Act or in any other law, value for that purpose and value for the purpose of computing the fee payable under the Act shall be the same. In the case of agricultural land which is not a garden land, under section 7, the market value for the purpose of court fee will be a multiple of the land revenue payable for that land. This multiple is very much less than the actual market value of the land. Consequently suits in respect of very valuable lands will have to be instituted in lower courts. It is considered that for the purpose of jurisdiction the actual market value of such lands should be taken into consideration and not the market value as determined for purposes of payment of court fees. This will enable parties to get the dispute adjudicated by a senior judicial officer. Clause 6.—Sub-section (1) of section 70 empowers the State Government to reduce or remit all or any of the fees chargeable under the Act. This will not enable the State Government to reduce or remit fees payable under the Act in respect of particular classes of documents or documents belonging to any class, or documents filed, exhibited or recorded by or acted on or furnished to any particular class of persons or members of such class. It has not therefore been possible to reduce or remit the fees payable in respect of classes of documents or documents on which court fee is payable 5 by particular class of persons. In order to enable the Government to reduce or remit the fees in such cases, it is considered necessary to amend this sub-section on the lines of sub-section (1) (a) of section 9 of the Mysore Stamp Act, 1957. Clause 7.—Under section 75, where allowance is made for damage or spoilt stamps or where fee already paid is directed to be refunded to any person, deduction at the rate of six naye paise for each rupee or fraction thereof is made while granting the refund. As the rate of deduction in similar cases of refund of non-judicial stamps under the Mysore Stamp Act is prescribed at ten naye paise per rupee or fraction thereof, it is considered desirable that there should be uniformity in the rate of deduction in both cases. It is therefore proposed to amend section 75 for this purpose. Clause 8.—According to clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 77, the High Court may make rule to provide for the fees payable by the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction. There is no provision under which the High Court can make rules to provide for the fees payable for serving and executing processes issued by it in its original jurisdiction. It is therefore proposed to delete the words “in its appellate jurisdiction” in this clause. Clause 9, item (1).—According to Article 5 of Schedule I, on an application for review of judgement one-half of the fee leviable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal comprising the relief sought in the application for review will have to be paid. It is difficult to determine the fee leviable with reference to the relief sought in the application for review. It is therefore proposed to delete the words “comprising the relief sought in the application for review”, and also provide for the payment of one-half of the fee only when an application is presented before the ninetieth day from the date of the decree. Item (2).—It is proposed to provide for the levy of the full fee on an application for review if it is presented on or after the ninetieth day from the date of the decree. Clause 10, item (1).—It is considered desirable to clarify the provision in Article 9 of Schedule II to make it clear that copies of orders taken out of any Court or public office should also be stamped with court fee stamps as specified therein. Item (2).—In Article 10, in clause (a), it is necessary to refer to the Department of Prohibition also. In clause (c), it is necessary to refer to the different local authorities and the officers of those authorities. This clause is accordingly proposed to be amended. In clause (j), the reference to the Board of Revenue should be reference to the Revenue Appellate Tribunal. The clause is therefore proposed to be amended. Item (3).—In Article 11, in clause (b), there is a reference to a Court or to any Board or to any executive officer. It is considered necessary to refer to a Board, Tribunal, statutory authority or public officer. This clause is accordingly proposed to be amended. In clause (e), there is a reference to the office of the Deputy Commissioner. It is necessary to include the office of other revenue officers also. This clause is therefore proposed to be amended. According to clause (f), an application or petition referred to therein has to be stamped with court fee of sixty-two naye paise. As the fee will have to be in multiples of 6 five naye paise, it is proposed to fix the fee for these applications or petitions at seventy- five naye paise. Clause (p) is proposed to be omitted as Advocates are now enrolled by the Bar Council under the Advocates Act. In clause (v), taking into consideration the formation of the Hubli-Dharwar Corporation and the existence of taluk boards, necessary amendments have been proposed. Item (4).—Article 16, item (a) is proposed to be amended to make it clear that a Vakalat when presented to any statutory or other authority or officer has also to be stamped with a court fee of one rupee. (Published in Karnataka Gazette (Extraordinary) Part IV-2A dated 16th December 1963 as No.166 at page. 6 - 9) IV Amending Act 27 of 1966.— Note.-By this Act the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (Karnataka Act 27 of 1966) was enacted. Certain consequential amendments are made therein to this Act . V Amending Act 11 of 1969.—According to section 48 of the Mysore Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, the fee payable on a memorandum of appeal against an order relating to compensation under any Act for the acquisition of property for public purpose shall be computed on the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant. In Miscellaneous First Appeals of Narsiyappa and others, the High Court has held that this section is applicable only to orders of Civil Courts and not to awards of arbitrators relating to compensation. It is therefore considered necessary to amend the Act to include awards and decisions within the scope of section 48. Hence the Bill. (Published in Karnataka Gazette (Extraordinary) Part IV-2A dated 18th July 1968 at page.33 ) VI Amending Act 3 of 1973.—It is considered necessary to increase the Court Fee payable under the Mysore Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 for a petition under Article 228 of the Constitution for a Writ other than a Writ of Habeas Corpus or a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Hence this Bill. (Published in Karnataka Gazette (Extraordinary) Part IV-2A dated 14th September 1972 at page.30 ) VII Amending Act 12 of 1973.—At present all applications under clause (1) of article 226 and articles 227 and 228 of the Constitution of India are dealt with by a Bench of two Judges. In the High Courts of Kerala, Madras, Nagpur, Allahabad, Delhi, Calcutta, 7 Andhra Pradesh and Bombay, such applications are dealt with by a single Judge and a right of appeal is given to the aggrieved party and such appeals are dealt with by a Bench of two Judges. The Law Ministers’ Conference held in 1957 and 1960 was also of the view that such applications should be dealt with by a single Judge with a right of appeal to a Bench of two Judges. The Law Commission in its Fourteenth Report Vol. II while considering the question has stated with particular reference to Madras that such a procedure has yielded satisfactory results. As the principles governing the disposal of Writ Petitions and connected matters have been now sufficiently clarified by the decisions of different High Courts and the Supreme Court, it is considered desirable to empower a single Judge to deal with applications under clause (1) of article 226 (except where the prayer is for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus) and applications under articles 227 and 228 of the Constitution of India with a right of appeal to a Bench of two Judges. It is also considered that this procedure may result in more expeditious disposal of such applications, and also provide a right of appeal to the aggrieved party whose right to approach the Supreme Court is very much restricted in view of the Constitution (Thirtieth) Amendment. Hence the Bill. Note.- Act 12 of 1973 mainly relates to amendments to the Karnataka High Court Act. Sone consequential amendments are made therein to Act 16 of 1958 also. (Published in Karnataka Gazette (Extraordinary) Part IV-2A dated 2nd May 1973 as No.432 at page.4 ) VIII Amending Act 80 of 1976.—In Miscellaneous First Appeal 159/65, a Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court held that in Appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking enhancement of compensation, court fee is not payable on the solatium awarded for compulsory acquisition on the ground that the expression amount awarded in Section 48 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1958 (Karnataka Act 16 of 1958) does not include the solatium. The above view is erroneous and is also contrary to an earlier decision of the High Court in 1970 (1) Mysore L.J. 91. An appeal has been filed against the decision before the Supreme Court and the same is pending. The disposal of the Appeal would take sometime. Hence in order to prevent court fee not being paid on solatium in similar appeals and claims for refund being made of court fee already paid, the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation (Amendment) Ordinance 1976 (Karnataka Ordinance 18 of 1976) was promulgated. This Bill seeks to replace the said Ordinance and opportunity has been taken to revise the court fee payable in respect of certain petition as they fixed more than fifteen years ago and to make certain other minor amendments to remove difficulties experienced in the working of the Act. Hence the Bill. (Published in Karnataka Gazette (Extraordinary) Part IV-2A dated 8th November 1976 as No.4422 at page 5-6 ) IX 8 Amending Act 21 of 1979.— In order to augment the revenues of the State it is proposed to amend taxation and other laws. Opportunity is taken to make some other amendments also. Hence this Bill. (Published in the Karnataka Gazette (Extraordinary) Part IV-2A dated 27-3-1979 as No. 259). X Amending Act 13 of 1981.—A fixed court fee of fifty rupees is payable under the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 in respect of a suit for relief under section 14 of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 or under section 91 or 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. No such fixed court fee is prescribed in respect of suits under section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act even though said section 50 is similar to section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In such suits advelorum court fee is payable. It is considered necessary to provide for payment of a fixed court fee of fifty rupees on a suit under section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act also. In certain such suits filed subsequent to 1st January 1976 the question of court fee payable has been raised and the suits are pending and it is considered necessary to give effect to this amendment from 1st January 1976. It is considered also necessary to make provision for payment of court fee on all caveat petitions. Hence the Bill. (Published in Karnataka Gazette (Extraordinary) Part IV-2A dated 6th February 1981 as No.115 at page.4 ) XI Amending Act 13 of 1982.—In the budget speech for the year 1982-83, the Hon’ble Minister for Finance and Tourism, has indicated several proposal in order to augment the revenue of the State. This Bill seeks to give effect to the said proposals. Opportunity is taken to make some other minor amendments. (Published in Karnataka Gazette (Extraordinary) Part IV-2A dated 27th March 1982 as No.223 at page31 ) XII Amending Act 16 of 1984.— Under section 75 of the Karnataka Court Fees and suit Valuation Act, 1958, to obtain payment of the court fee ordered to be refunded by the Court an application has to be made to the Deputy Commissioner. This procedure is causing inconvenience to the Litigants and delay in getting the refund. It is therefore proposed to amend the said section and simplify the procedure by empowering the Courts to directly pay the litigants the court fee ordered to be refunded to them. Hence the Bill. (Obtained from L.A. Bill No. 39 of 1983.) XIII 9 Amending Act 2 of 1985.—By this Act the Karnataka Advocates Welfare Fund Act 1985 was enacted in which certain consequents Amendments are made to this Act. XIV Amending Act 5 of 1989.—The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal is a substitute for the High Court of Karnataka in relation to matters covered by the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1986, framed by the Government of India, in the exercise of its powers under section 35(d) of the said Act makes provision for payment of Court Fee on for filing applications for interim order and process fee only. There are other matters in respect of which the Administrative Tribunal Act does not empower the Government of India to frame rules and the Karnataka Court fees and Suits Valuation Act would be applicable to other situations. With a view to bring uniformity in regard to levy and collection of court fees on matters not covered by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1986, it is considered necessary to make such provisions in the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. Hence the Bill. (Obtained from LA Bill 25 of 1988.) XV Amending Act 2 of 1993.—In order to give effect to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P.M. Ashwathanarayana Setty vs State of Karnataka and others reported in A.I.R. 1989 SC 100 it is considered necessary to suitably amend the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. Hence the Bill. (Obtained from LA Bill 26 of 1992.) XVI Amending Act 7 of 1996.—It is considered necessary to enhance the court fees from rupees fifteen to rupees fifty payable in respect of,— (1) suits to alter or cancel any entry in a revenue or survey register or records of the names of proprietors of revenue paying estate. (2) suits in revenue courts relating to a village office. (3) suits not otherwise provided for in the Act, in a revenue court by amending sections 43 and 47 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act,