PAULRAJAN Vs. SPL. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel on either side.

(2.) The petitioner wants to question the arbitration award passed on 23/11/2015 under Sec. 3G(5) of the National Highways Act 1956. The petitioner claims to have presented the set aside petition under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in time. It is further claimed that the bundle went missing and it has now been re-constructed. I do not want to go into those issues. The only question I am now concerned is whether the Court fee paid by the petitioner is correct. According to the petitioners, they have to pay the Court fee under the unamended Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955. The Court below has made a return that the Court fee has to be paid as per the amendment which came into force on 1/3/2017.

(3.) The issue raised in the civil revision petition is no longer res integra. A learned Judge of this Court vide order dtd. 19/6/2023 in S.A.SR.No.24518 of 2018 (V.Rajarathinam V. V.Sivasubramanian and others) had held that the amended provisions of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955, enhancing the Court fees vide the Amended Act would not apply to an appeal arising out of a suit instituted prior to the amendment ie. prior to 1/3/2017. The same principle will apply to the case on hand also. In this case, the award was passed on 23/11/2015. The set aside petition was filed under Sec. 34 of the Act against the award passed on 23/11/2015 which is prior to the amended Act. Consequential arbitration petition has to be valued in terms of the unamended Act that was applicable at the time when the arbitration award was passed.