Read Time: 08 minutes

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that ad valorem court fee needs to be affixed in a suit claiming damages for defamation. 

“The petitioners having claimed a specific amount as damages, therefore, were liable to pay court fee on such amount. They cannot arbitrarily value the reliefs claimed so as to avoid their liability of paying the court fee along with the plaint.”, Single Judge Bench of Justice Navin Chawla noted.

In the present case, petitioner had challenged order passed by the Trial Court in their respective Suits, calling upon the petitioner herein, who are the plaintiffs in the Suit, to deposit the deficit court fee for a suit damages qua their alleged defamation.

In order to substantiate the claim that the petitioner can put their own valuation to the relief of damages and pay court-fee at such value, with an undertaking to deposit more court fee when the actual damages are awarded by the court, the petitioner’s Counsel relied on Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari, (2007) 8 SCC 600; Amandeep Sidhu v. M/s Ultratech Cement Limited & Ors. 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 15769; Maha Singh v. Mukesh & Anr., [Judgment dated 01.04.2019 in Civil Revision No. 5478 of 2019 (O&M)]; Mange Ram v. State of Haryana and Ors., [Judgment dated 25.11.2019 in Civil Revision No.10281 of 2018 (O&M)];Dev Brat Sharma v. State of Punjab and Ors., (Judgment dated 11.08.2017 in Civil Revision No. 291 of 2017); M/S Commercial Aviation & Travel Company and Ors. v. Vimla Pannalal, (1998) 3 SCC 423; Bharpoor Singh & Anr v. Lachhman Singh, [Judgment dated 17.01.2017 in Civil Revision No. 226 of 2017 (O&M)];Subhash Chander Goel v. Harvind Sagar, AIR 2003 P&H 248; State of Punjab and Ors v. Jagdip Singh Chowhan, 2004 SCC OnLine P&H 1022; S. Ajit Singh Kohar v. Shashi Kant, (Judgment dated 25.08.2014 in Civil Revision No. 5638 of 2014); Kashmir Singh v. Mandeep Kaur & Ors., (Judgment dated 05.10.2018 in Civil Revision No. 6759 of 2018)

The issue that arose for consideration was whether the court fee payable on Suits claiming damages for defamation is ad valorem according to the amount claimed or whether the petitioners, as plaintiffs, can value the Suit for purposes of court fee at a value different from the amount claimed in the Suit and pay the court fee according to the said amount, with an undertaking to pay the court fee upon the amount which is finally determined by the learned Trial Court(s) in the Suits as damages payable to the petitioners. 

The Bench while referring to section 7(i) of the Court Fees Act,1870 (“Act”) which provides for paying court fee as per the amount claimed in the Suit in a Suit for money including Suit for damages & Section 7(iv)(f) of the Act which provides for paying of Court Fee after valuation of the relief sought in Suit for accounts observed that in the present matter there were no Accounts to be taken in the Suit. 

The Court also observed that the objective and positive material for the correct valuation of the relief as claimed in the present case was available in the relief itself. 

“The petitioners have claimed a specific amount in their respective Suit. They cannot therefore arbitrarily value the Suit for the purposes of court fee and pay a lesser amount as court fee," the Court remarked. 

Reliance was placed on Ranjit Kaur & Ors. v. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors., 2006 SCC OnLine P&H 1095,M/s. R & D Enterprises (Export) & Anr. v. Air France & Anr., ILR (1998) I Delhi 528 & Hari Gokal Jewellers v. Satish Kapur, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 482. 

Thus, the Bench while dismissing the petition directed the petitioners to file applications seeking amendment in their respective plaints, to claim a lower amount of damages, & pay ad valorem court fee on the amount claimed.

Case Title: Shiv Kumar Gupta v. Pooja & Anr 

Law Point/Statute Involved: Section 7(i) & 7(iv)(f) of the Court Fees Act,1870