Deutsch Website, wo Sie Qualität und günstige https://medikamenterezeptfrei2014.com/ Viagra Lieferung weltweit erwerben.

Ein wenig Kopfschmerzen, aber schnell verging der Schmerz. Gefühle, die ich erlebte ein unvergessliches kamagra kaufen Ehrlich gesagt nicht wirklich glauben, in der Kraft Viagra. Setzte nach der Anleitung. Das Ergebnis ist natürlich, sich selbst rechtfertigte.

625-08 (bill court fee).pmd

Twelfth Kerala Legislative Assembly
Bill No. 208
THE KERALA COURT FEES AND SUITS VALUATION
( AMENDMENT) BILL, 2008
Twelfth Kerala Legislative Assembly
Bill No. 208
THE KERALA COURT FEES AND SUITS VALUATION
( AMENDMENT) BILL, 2008
Twelfth Kerala Legislative Assembly
Bill No. 208
THE KERALA COURT FEES AND SUITS VALUATION further to amend the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959. Preamble.—WHEREAS, it is expedient further to amend the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 for the purposes hereinafter appearing ; BE it enacted in the Fifty-ninth Year of the Republic of India as follows:— 1. Short title and commencement.—(1) This Act may be called the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation (Amendment) Act, 2008.
(2) It shall come into force at once.
2. Substitution of new section for section 52A.—In the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (10 of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as the principalAct), for section 52A, the following section shall be substituted, namely:— “52A. Fees on Memorandum of Appeal against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and Wealth Tax Appellate Tribunal.—Notwithstandinganything contained in section 52, the fees payable on a memorandum of appealfiled before the High Court against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunalunder the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Central Act 43 of 1961) and of the Wealth TaxAppellate Tribunal, under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (Central Act 27 of 1957),shall respectively be at the rates specified in sub-item (C) and (D) of item (iii) ofArticle 3 of Schedule II.”.
3. Insertion of new section 69A.—After section 69 of the principal Act, the following section shall be inserted, namely:— “69A. Refund in case where Court refers the dispute for settlement out side the Court under section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code.—Where a suit isreferred by the Court under section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CentralAct 5 of 1908) for arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement, including settlement through Lok Adalat or mediation, the whole fee paid on the plaintshall be ordered by the Court to be refunded to the parties concerned by whomthe same has been paid.”.
4. Amendment of Schedule II.— In Schedule II of the principal Act,— (1) in article 3, in sub-item (C) of item (iii),— (a) the words and figures “or the Wealth Tax Act, 1957” in column (b) for the words “Five hundred rupees” in column (3) against clause (d) in column (2), the words “Ten per cent of relief sought for, subject to aminimum of five hundred rupees” shall be substituted ; (c) after sub-item (C) in column (2) and the entries against it in column (3), the following sub-item and entries shall respectively be inserted,namely:— “(D) From an order of the Appellate Tribunal under the Wealth Tax Act, assessee as computed by theAssessing Officer, in the case towhich the appeal relates is one lakhrupees or less net wealth, subject to amaximum of ten thousandrupees (2) in article 4, for the words and figures “under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940” in column (2), the words and figures “under Arbitrationand Conciliation Act, 1993” shall be substituted; (3) in article 10, for clause (g) in column (2) and the entries relating thereto in column (3), the following clause and entries shall respectively be “(g) Application for attestation of private documents intended to be used (ii) which requires counter signature after Section 52 A of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 provides that the fee payable on Memorandum of Appeal filed before the HighCourt against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal or the Wealth TaxTribunal under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Central Act 43 of 1961) or the WealthTax Act, 1957 (Central Act 27 of 1957), as the case may be, shall be at the rateprescribed in sub-item (C) of item (iii) of Article 3 of Schedule II. It is decided tosubstitute a new section for section 52A and amend article 3 (iii) (C) and article3 (iii) (C) (d) in the Schedule II of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits ValuationAct, 1959 (Act 10 of 1960) to fix the court fee for Memorandum of Appeal to theHigh Court from the Appellate Tribunal under the Income Tax Act, 1961, inaccordance with the total income as computed by the Assessing Officer andrelief sought and insert sub-item (D) to article 3 (iii) in Schedule II of the saidAct to fix the court fee, for Memorandum of Appeal to the High Court from theAppellate Tribunal under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, in accordance with the netwealth of the assessee as computed by the Assessing Officer and relief sought.
The amendments are made to clear the doubts pointed out by the HonourableHigh Court in ITA No. 18/03.
Section 69 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 provides that when a suit or appeal is compromised or when a suit is decidedsolely on the admission of parties without any investigation, one half of thecourt fees paid on the plaint or Memorandum of Appeal shall be ordered by theCourt to be refunded to the parties by whom the same has been paidrespectively. Though section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (Central Act 7 of1870) provides for refund of the full amount of court fee paid, where the courtrefers parties to any mode of settlement referred to in section 89 of CivilProcedure Code, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908), the existing provision in the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 provides for the refund of onlyone half of the court fees paid on the plaint or memorandum of appeal in casesof compromise or when a suit is decided solely on admission of the partieswithout any investigation. The Honourable High Court in Vasudevan Vs. State ofKerala [2003 (3) KLT 670] has held that since the refund of court fees isgoverned by section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 read with section 21 of theLegal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (Act 39 of 1987), the whole of the court feespaid is to be refunded. In O.B. Aboobacker Vs. District Collector, Palakkad[2006 (3) KLT 670] the Honourable High Court has directed to effect necessaryamendment to the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 for refund ofthe entire court fees when a compromise or settlement has been arrived at LokAdalat in a case referred to it under sub-section (1) of section 21 of the LegalServices Authorities Act, 1987. In order to comply with the directions of the HighCourt, Government considered it necessary to insert a new provision for therefund of the full court fees paid in tune with the provisions in the Court FeesAct, 1870 and the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
3. Article 4 of Schedule II to the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 provides for the amount of court fees paid on the Memorandum of Appealunder section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Arbitration Act, 1940 hasbeen repealed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Central Act 26 of1996). Hence Article 4 of Schedule II to the Kerala Court Fees and SuitsValuation Act, 1959 has to be amended by replacing the words “Arbitration Act1940” with the words “Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996”.
4. Clause (g) in Article 10 of Schedule II of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 prescribes an amount of Rs. 10 for attestation ofprivate document intended to be used outside India. Most of the abovedocuments are to be attested by the State Home Department. In a proposal putforward by the State Home Department it was decided to enhance the court feepayable on attestation of private documents intended to be used outside India.
In the case of applications which involve genuineness of the document thecourt fee is proposed to be enhanced to one hundred rupees and in the case ofapplication which require counter signature after attestation by a Notary thecourt fees is proposed to be fixed as fifty rupees. Though it was decided tomake amendments in clause (g) of column (2) of Article 10 of Schedule II andentries connected therewith and a Bill for the above purpose namely, the KeralaCourt Fees and Suits Valuation (Amendment) Bill, 2005 was published as BillNo. 308 of the 11th Kerala Legislative Assembly, the same has been lapsed byvirtue of Article 196 (5) of the Constitution on the dissolution of the 11th KeralaLegislative Assembly. Now Government have decided to increase the court fees from Rs. 10 to Rs. 50 for application for attestation of private documentsintended to be used outside India, which involves verification of genuineness ofthe document and to fix a court fee of Rupees 25 payable on application whichrequires countersignature after attestation by a Notary.
5. In order to give statutory validity to the enhanced rate it is decided to amend the entry in article 10(g) in Schedule II to the Kerala Court Fees andSuits Valuation Act, 1959.
6. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects.
Section 69A of the Act proposed to be inserted by clause 3 of the Bill, provides for the refund of full court fees paid on the plaint to the partiesconcerned, in cases where a suit is referred by the Court under section 89 of theCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 for arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement,including settlement through Lok Adalat or mediation. Hence the Bill whenenacted and brought into operation would involve expenditure from theConsolidated Fund of the State. The anticipated recurring expenditure in thisaccount would be Rs. 150 lakhs.
EXTRACT FROM THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE KERALA COURT 52A. Fee on Memorandum of Appeal against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal or Wealth Tax Appellate Tribunal.—Notwithstandinganything contained in Section 52, the fee payable on a Memorandum of Appealfiled before the High Court against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunalor the Wealth Tax Appellate Tribunal, under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (CentralAct 43 of 1961) or the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (Central Act 27 of 1957), as thecase may be, shall be at the rates specified in sub-item (C) of item (iii) of Article3 of Schedule II.
69. Refund in cases of compromise or when suit is decided on the admission of parties.—When a suit or appeal is compromised or when a suit isdecided solely on the admission of the parties without any investigation, one-half of the Court fee paid on the plaint or memorandum of appeal shall beordered by the Court to be refunded to the parties by whom the same havebeen paid respectively: Provided that no refund shall be ordered where only one-tenth of the amount of fee on plaint as required by Section 4A or one-third of the amountof fee on memorandum of appeal as required by Section 52 has been paid bythe parities.
Memorandum of appeal from an orderinclusive of an order determining anyquestion under Section 47 or Section 144of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, andnot otherwise provided for whenpresented— Court or to the Board of Revenue orthe Chief Executive Authority or toany Executive Officer under the Kerala AgriculturistsDebt Relief Act, 1958 by a Subordinate Court or otherauthority— or proceeding, the value ofwhich exceeds one thousandrupees Section 5 of the Kerala HighCourt Act, 1958— exercise of original jurisdi-ction, which would beappealable under the Codeof Civil Procedure, 1908, hadit been passed by aSubordinate Court Section 411-A of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1898.
Tribunal under the Income TaxAct, 1961 or the Wealth Tax Act,1957,— of the assessee ascomputed by theAssessing Officer, in thecase to which the appealrelates is one lakh rupeesor less assessed income,subject to amaximum of tenthousand rupees of an appeal relates toany matter, other thanthose specified in sub-clauses (a) to (c) above of a statutory right to appealfor which no Court-fee isleviable under any otherenactment Section 39 of the ArbitrationAct, 1940— order of a Munsiff’s Court oran order of a superior Courtin a case where the value forthe purpose of jurisdictiondoes not exceed rupeesfifteen thousand in other cases where theamount or value of thesubject matter— lakh, for every hundredrupees, or part thereof, uptorupees one lakh every hundred rupees, orpart thereof, in excess ofrupees one lakh upto rupeesfive lakhs every hundred rupees, orpart thereof, in excess ofrupees five lakhs.
presented to any Officerof land revenue by anyperson holding tempo-rarily settled land underdirect engagement withGovernment and whenthe subject-matter of theapplication or petitionrelates exclusively tosuch engagement presented to any officerof land revenue relatingto the grant of land ondarkhast or assignmentof land Collector for lease ofland for agricultural ornon-agricultural purposes.
presented to anyExecutive Officer, underany Act for the timebeing in force for theconservancy or improve-ment of any place if theapplication or petitionrelates solely to suchconservancy or improve-ment presented to any Boardor Executive Officer for acopy or translation ofany order passed bysuch Board or officer orof any other documenton record in such office Application to a ForestOfficer by a forestcontractor for extensionof the period of lease subject-matter of thelease is rupees Twenty-five thousand or less rupees twenty-fivethousand, for everyrupees thousand or partthereof, in excess ofrupees twenty-fivethousand tion of private docu-ments intended to beused outside India.

Source: http://www.niyamasabha.org/bills/12kla/208eng.pdf

02_5221_paper

Anna Serefko1, Aleksandra Szopa1, Piotr WlaŸ2, Gabriel Nowak3,4,Maria Radziwoñ-Zaleska5, Micha³ Skalski5, Ewa Poleszak1Chair and Department of Applied Pharmacy, Medical University of Lublin, ChodŸki 1, PL 20-093 Lublin, Poland Department of Animal Physiology, Faculty of Biology and Biotechnology, Maria Curie-Sk³odowska University,Akademicka 19, PL 20-033 Lublin, Poland!Department of Neurob

Título

Área: África Subsahariana/Seguridad y Defensa ARI Nº 168/2008 Fecha: 23/12/2008 Actos de piratería y bandidaje cometidos frente a las costas de Somalia: análisis desde el derecho internacional Tema : Existen diferencias en la naturaleza y calificación de los actos de violencia cometidos frente a las costas de Somalia, por lo que merecen un tratamiento jurídico distinto.

Copyright © 2010-2014 Health Drug Pdf