ILA RAJESH MEHTA Vs. RAM PRAKASH MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 17th November,1997, the First Defendant drew two Bills of Exchange for valuable consideration, each in the amount of Rs. 1 lakh upon the Second Defendant, ordering the Second Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff, an aggregate sum of Rs. 2 lakhs payable 180 days after date. Notice of dishonour in respect of the said Bills of Exchange was waived by the First Defendant by an endorsement made on each of the said Bills of Exchange. The Bills of Exchange were duly accepted by the Second Defendant and were thereupon delivered to the Plaintiff. These Bills of Exchange, it has been stated in para 3 of the Plaint, were renewed Bills of Exchange since the Defendants had been unable to pay the amounts due and payable under the initial Bills of Exchange and had sought extension of time to make payment of the principal sum. Interest was, however, paid by the First Defendant from time to time, between 12th June, 1995 and 27th September, 1997 and the details of those payments are contained in para 3 of the Plaint. The transaction had been arranged by the financial broker M/s. Sunil and Co. The Bills of Exchange were dishonoured upon presentation by the Second Defendant and it has been stated in para 4 of the Plaint that notice of dishonour was furnished to the First Defendant though, as stated earlier, such notice has been waived by the First Defendant. By a letter dated 17th July, 1998, addressed to the Finance Broker, the Defendants had acknowledged their liability to pay under various Bills of Exchange and sought some time to do so in view of their financial difficulty. By an Advocate's letter dated 1st September, 1998, the Plaintiff called upon the Defendants to repay the amount due and payable under the suit Bills of Exchange. Beyond the formal reply dated 7th September, 1998 to the effect that the matter is being studied in detail, there is no further reply to the said letter of demand.

(2.) AT the hearing of the Summons for Judgment, the defence which was pressed on behalf of the Defendants was that no Court fee has been paid by the Plaintiff and that therefore, the Defendants are entitled to unconditional leave to defend the suit. My attention has been invited to the Judgment of my Learned Brother H. L. Gokhale, J. in Jyoti s. Doshi vs. M/s. Hindustan Hosiery Mills, reported in (2000 (4) ALL MR 389) : 2000 (4) Mh. L. J. 228. The Learned Single Judge of this Court considered the interpretation of two notifications issued by the State Government under the provisions of Section 46 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. By the first of the said notifications dated 1st October, 1994, the State Government remitted the Court fees payable by women litigants on applications, petitions and other documents specified in the First and the Second Schedule to the Act to be filed in Civil, Family or Criminal Cases in respect of cases relating to (a) maintenance; (b) property disputes; (c) violence and (D) divorce. By a further notification dated 23rd March, 2000, the Government clarified that 'properly disputes' for the purposes of the earlier notification shall mean disputes arising out of and concerning matrimonial matters. Two issues were framed for consideration by H. L. Gokhale, J. in the Judgment under consideration. These issues were as follows :

(3.) IN the present case, it is common ground that the suit has not been instituted by the Plaintiff either as a Director of a Company or as partner in partnership firm. That is also clear from the recitals contained in para 1 of the Plaint. That being the position, there is no substance in the defence that the Plaintiff was liable to pay Court fees. The suit has been instituted in the present case on 14th September, 1998 which is much prior to the subsequent notification dated 23rd March, 2000 and, therefore, as per the earlier notification dated 1st October, 1994 as interpreted by the Learned Single Judge of this Court, there is no tenable defence to the suit, in regard to the payment of Court fees.