ASYA Vs. SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in these cases is mainly in respect of the actual court fee payable for challenging the orders passed by the concerned District Court either under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 ('New Act' in short) or the Awards passed under Sec. 34 of the Act in an appeal preferred under Sec. 37(1)(a) (in respect of interim order) and those coming within the purview of Sec. 37(1)(b) in respect of the final awards.

(2.) The matter necessitated elaborated consideration in view of the amendment of the Statute (Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act) as per the Finance Act 2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2013, stipulating payment of court fee as provided under Art. 4(i) or (4)(ii) of the Second Schedule. On an earlier occasion, when objection was noted by the Registry as to the adequacy of court fee, a detailed order was passed by this Court as reported in 2015 (5) KHC 929 [Syndicate Bank Vs. Nishad Mathew and Ors.] insisting to pay 'ad valorem' court fee in terms of Art. 4(ii) of the Second Schedule. In some subsequent cases, this Court permitted numbering of the appeals (arising from interim orders in terms of Sec. 9, r/w Sec. 37(1) (a) of the Act) observing that the objection raised by the Registry will be considered in the due course. Since the issue requires more clarity, these matters have been heard in detail.

(3.) Mr. K. Jayakumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in the unnumbered arbitration appeal (ZARBA No. 88 of 2016) led the arguments on behalf of the appellants situated on similar pedestal and was supported by other learned counsel, to the extent they are involved. Argument on behalf of the respondent State was made by Mr. K.A. Jaleel, the learned Additional Advocate General.