Manjushree Govindlal Kothari vs EMMAR Builders and Developers Private Limited and Others

Naik Vasanti A., J.—Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

The issue involved in this case is a short one and is covered by the Full Bench judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Mr. Puneet Malhotra and Another Vs. Mr. R.S. Gai, Sole Arbitrator and Others, . In this case the petitioner had challenged the award passed by the arbitrator by filing proceedings before the District Judge at Nagpur u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The learned District Judge, by following the judgment Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Vs. Govardhani Constructions Company, , directed the petitioner to pay the Court fee as provided under Article 3 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. The learned District Judge directed the petitioner to pay Court fee of Rs. 1,74,030/-. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.8.2007 by filing this petition.

Since the judgment reported in Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Vs. Govardhani Constructions Company, . has been overruled by the Full Bench of this Court by the judgment reported in Mr. Puneet Malhotra and Another Vs. Mr. R.S. Gai, Sole Arbitrator and Others, . it would be necessary to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned District Judge on 10.8.2007 as the same is based on the judgment reported in Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Vs. Govardhani Constructions Company, . It has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Punit Malhotra that when a petition u/s 34 challenging an award of the Arbitrator is filed before the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction which is not a High Court, no Court fee under Bombay Courts Fees Act is payable. In the instant case, the application u/s 34 was filed before the District Judge, Nagpur. The case is squarely covered by the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Punit Malhotra and another. Hence for the reasons stated herein above, the impugned order dated 10.8.2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.

Heard Shri Bhattad, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ghare, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to delete the name of respondent. Permission is granted. The petitioner is permitted to delete the name of the respondent No. 2 at the risk of the petitioner. Necessary amendment may be carried out forthwith.