SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
  1. Home
  2. / Subject
  3. /Minor Act and SC Rules

NEMI CHAND V. EDWARD MILLS CO. LTD. 1953 SCR 197: AIR 1953 SC 28

NEMI CHAND V. EDWARD MILLS CO. LTD. 1953 SCR 197: AIR 1953 SC 28

FACTS

  • The case revolves around a dispute within the Edward Mills Co. Ltd., a joint stock company situated in Beawar, Ajmer-Merwara.
  • Seth Gadh Mal Lodha and Rai Sahib Moti Lal(respondent no.2) were respectively Chairman and Managing Director of the company since 1916.
  • In 1938, Moti Lal was adjudged insolvent, leading to his removal from office.
  • Gadh Mal Lodha was appointed as Managing Director, who later died in 1942.
  • Seth Sobhagmal Lodha was then appointed as Chairman and Managing Director temporarily.
  • Conflict arose in a meeting in 1945 between the two groups represented by Sobhagmal Lodha and Moti Lal, resulting in the appointment of Moti Lal as the sole agent and Chairman.
  • Sobhagmal Lodha approached the District Judge for a court-supervised general meeting, which was allowed.
  • Respondent 2 challenged this decision in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, which ruled in his favour.
  • Appellant then filed a suit to declare the appointment of Moti Lal illegal and that a receiver be appointed to take charge of the management of the Company, until a properly qualified Chairman, Managing Director etc. are duly appointed.
  • The suit was dismissed because it related to the Company's internal management, and the appellants did not include the necessary parties, the Directors.
  • The Judicial Commissioner ordered payment of court fees within a month but did not provide reasons. The appeal was dismissed with costs when the fee was not paid. An attempt to appeal to the Privy Council was also denied.
  • Hence the present appeal against the judgment of privy council.

ISSUE

  • whether the order of the Judicial Commissioner demanding additional court fee can be sustained in law and whether memorandum of appeal was duly stamped?

RULE

  • Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-Fees Act states that the memorandum of appeal should be stamped according to the relief claimed in the appeal.
  • The determination of court-fee is not contingent upon the nature of the relief sought in the lower court but is solely based on the relief claimed in the appeal.

HELD

  • The Court held that the memorandum of appeal was properly stamped as it solely sought a declaratory relief, which fell under a which fell under Article 17 of the Court-Fees Act.
  • The Court emphasized that the determination of court-fee is solely based on the relief claimed in the appeal, regardless of the relief sought in the lower court.
  • The Court rejected the contention that the decision of the Judicial Commissioner on the court fee issue was final and non-appealable, asserting that it did not fall within the ambit of Section 12 of the Court-Fees Act.
  • The court discussed the interpretation of the term "finality" within the context of the statute. It argued that "finality" in this context does not necessarily imply absolute immunity from any form of challenge or examination in a higher court.
  • Court noted that the Judicial Commissioner's decision did not directly address questions related to valuation or the category under which the suit fell, which are the typical subjects falling within the ambit of Section 12.
  • Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Judicial Commissioner, and remanded the case for further proceedings based on the properly stamped memorandum of appeal.