AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anoop V. Mohta, J.—The Petitioner/claimant had invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ''the Arbitration Act'') and thereby challenged the award dated 31.08.2009 passed by the arbitral tribunal. The said arbitration petition was lodged on 27.11.2009. The office raised objection on 03.12.2009. The Petitioner removed the same on 08.02.2010. Even on that date, there was no office objection about the court-fee in view of the amendment to the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959 by Ordinance No. XII of 2009 dated 11.08.2009 (for short ''the Ordinance''). The said Ordinance came into force from 01.09.2009. The relevant clauses are as under:
xxx
(1) This Ordinance may be called the Bombay Court-fees (Amendment) Ordinance, 2009.
(2) It shall come into force on the 1st September, 2009.
In Schedule I to the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959,-
(a) in Article 3, the words and figures "otherwise than under the Arbitration Act, 1940" shall be deleted;
(b) after Article 3, the following article shall be inserted, namely:
3A. Application or petition (including memorandum of appeal) to set aside or modify arbitral award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A fee of one-half of the ad valorem fee on the amount or value of the award sought to be set aside or modified, according to the scale prescribed under Article 1.
The Petitioner, however, moved this petition on lodging number and this Court on 14.01.2010 issued notice to the Respondents. Even, at that time, there was no objection about the deficit court-fee as recorded above.
On 11.03.2010, on instructions, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, circulated the matter on board for withdrawal. The other side had no objection for the same. This Court disposed of the said petition as withdrawn, but with following observation:
The petition is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn, subject to payment of court-fees in pursuance to the amendment of the Bombay Court-fees Act.
The office, therefore, in view of this order, raised objection on 19.03.2010 of deficit court-fee of Rs. 1,21,815 being one-half of the ad valorem fee as per the new amendment.
Rule 986 of the High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980, which is relevant, reads as under:
Rule 986- Rejection of plaint, memo of appeal, execution application and applications and petitions of original nature for non-removal of office objections- Every plaint, memo of appeal, application for execution and all other applications and petitions of the original nature, including the petition by an indigent person, in which the Plaintiff/Appellant/applicant/ Petitioner does not remove the office objections within 30 days from the date of lodging the said documents, shall be placed before the Prothonotary and Senior Master for directions, who may reject such documents for non-removal of office objections. Rule 133 of these rules will apply to such rejection.
In view of above, therefore, even if any plaint, application and/or petition, filed and if party/Petitioner fails to remove office objection within 30 days from the date of lodging, the petition or the matter gets listed before the Prothonotary for direction, who may reject such application/petition for non-removal of office objections. Therefore, even if such petition is lodged which is permissible under the law, the party is entitled to remove office objection to get the matter registered. If party fails to remove the office objection including the office objection of deficit court-fee, the matter may be dismissed for want of prosecution. The petition was filed by paying the then existing court-fee of Rs. 200 as per the provisions prior to 01.09.2009. Therefore, in the normal consequences, the petition could have been dismissed for want of prosecution for non-payment of deficit court-fee.
There was no court-fee payable of this nature prior to the Ordinance. The government notification under the Bombay Court-fees Act dated 01.08.1959 referring to Section 43 of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959 deals only with various types of refund of court-fee stages of the suit.
Section 26 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('' CPC '') deals with the aspect of "Institution of Suits" which is as under:
Institution of suits-
(1) Every suit shall be instituted by the presentation of a plaint or in such other manner as may be prescribed.
(2) xxx
Rule 45 of High Court (Original Side) Rules deals with the aspect of lodging of plaint before presentation which is as under:
Rule 45-Plaint to be lodged before presentation-A plaint in which leave of the court is to be applied for shall, except in cases of special urgency, be lodged for examination with the officer attending on the judge in chambers before 4.15 p.m. on the day previous to its being presented to the judge and the Plaintiff or his advocate on record shall attend before the judge at the time of presentation.
All other plaints shall be lodged with such officer as the Prothonotary and Senior Master may direct.
There are various steps/stages to be crossed before a suit or a petition is registered. After lodging of the plaint or the petition before the concerned officer, who, after examination of the same, raises objection and subject to removal of office objection, the suit or the petition shall stand registered.
It is also clear that there is no provision under the Bombay Court-fees Act even in the recently amended provision, i.e. Ordinance dated 11.08.2009, of refund of court-fee as required to be paid in view of the amendment if the Petitioner or a party wants to withdraw and/or the court permits them to withdraw such petition as filed for setting aside the award as referred above, before registration of the petition.
In the present case, as the permission was sought and granted, at the lodging stage of the proceeding/petition, therefore, I am inclined to modify the order and restricting to the order of disposal of the petition as withdrawn. There is no question of recovery of deficit of court-fee as the same is not applicable in cases where the parties before getting the petition registered, and without recording any settlement/compromise at lodging stage itself and/ or under objection, withdraw the petition u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act.
We have observed in order dated 18th September, 2008 in Arbitration Appeal No. 1 of 2009-Harjinder Singh s/o Balwant Singh Osan v. Paramjeet Singh s/o Balwant Singh Osan(Nagpur Bench) while dealing with the aspect of Bombay Court-fees Act referring to the Arbitration Act, 1996 as under:
It is clear that the BCF Act is enacted to collect revenue for the benefit of the State and not to arm a contesting party with a weapon of defence to obstruct proceedings. Sri Ratnavaramaraja Vs. Smt. Vimla, . In State of Maharashtra Vs. Mishri Lal Tarachand Lodha and Others, the Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 9 as under:
... The Act is a taxing statute and its provisions, therefore, have to be construed strictly in favour of the subject litigant''.
There is an order dated 29.04.1960 bearing No. OFA 1056/58839III issued u/s 43(2) of the 1959 Act, wherein full amount of the initial fee is refundable in case the appeal is withdrawn before registration or when registration is refused. In the present case, arbitration application was not registered.
The plaint as defined under the Bombay Court-fees Act is not an arbitration petition u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act. Both are different for the purposes of Court-fees Act. There is no court-fee chargeable to the claims made before the arbitral tribunal. The court-fee is payable only if the aggrieved party wants to challenge the award or apply for modification of the same. The party/litigant cannot be put to disadvantage even though he does not want to proceed with unregistered petition u/s 34 and also for the reason that there is no specific provision for refund under the Act in such circumstances. The parties/litigants cannot be rendered remediless in the circumstances. The court-fee is different than that of the statutory tax.
I am not dealing with the cases where any arbitration petition which is duly registered or compromised or settled, before registration and the court permitted them to withdraw the same. All points are kept open.
In my view, the Petitioner is not liable for court-fee in view of the Ordinance, as the Petitioner does not want to proceed with the petition to set aside or to modify the award. He had sought permission to withdraw the same before registration. The permission was also granted. Therefore, there is no question of demand of court-fee on such unregistered petition under the facts and circumstances of the case.
The praecipe dated 26th April, 2010 so filed for modification of the order, I am considering the same as the application for review of the order as contended and submitted to do so and as there is no opposition, I am modifying the order accordingly as referred above.
The office objection regarding court-fee dated 19.03.2010 is quashed. The unregistered petition is permitted to be withdrawn. No costs.