BETEL STORES Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.

(2.) THIS is the revision under Rule 4(v) of Chapter V of the Bombay High Court Rules, 1960, read with Section 115, Civil Procedure Code against the decision dated 26.3.1991 of the Taxing Officer of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur (for short referred to as 'the High Court') in First Appeal Stamp No. 25947 of 1990, holding that the court fee paid by the applicant-appellant is inadequate and directing him to pay the deficit court fee of Rs. 15/- on the memo of appeal filed under Section 23(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The applicant had filed the claim petition under Section 16 of the Hallway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act'), seeking relief in respect of the matter referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act. The Railway Claims Tribunal by us order dated 4.10.1990, rejected the petitioner's claim to the extent of Rs. 634.82. As against this rejection of the applicant's claim to the extent of Rs. 634.82 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, the applicant tiled the appeal under Section 23 of the Act to this Court paying therein the court fee of Rs. 49/- calculating the same as per the provisions of Rule 6 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 read with Schedule II of the Rules.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Dubey, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Parate, learned Honorary Assistant Government Pleader for the non-applicant State. It is contended by Mr. Dubey, learned Counsel for the applicant, that having regard to the provisions of the Act and Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 and further having regard to the provisions of Rule 2 of Chapter V of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules and the provisions of Section 7 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 the court fee paid by the applicant on the memorandum of appeal was perfectly correct and proper and contrary decision arrived at by the Taxing Officer was not justified. Mr. Parate, learned Counsel for the non-applicant State, tried to justify the order of the Taxing Officer.