SHARDA Vs. RATILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals challenge the common judgment and order dated 28-2-2011 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Chandrapur in Misc. Civil Application Nos. 37 of 2005, 38 of 2005 and 40 of 2005 filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act ("the said Act"), for setting aside the Award dated 17-12-2004 passed by the Arbitrator. The question involved in both these appeals arising out of a preliminary objection raised by the respondents is whether the provision of section 3A of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 introduced by the Maharashtra Act No. IX of 2010 with effect from 1-9-2009 is attracted in this case requiring the appellants to pay one-half of the ad valorem fee on the amount or value of the award sought to be set aside in an appeal under section 37 of the said Act.

(2.) The facts are as under: On 14-3-2005, three Misc. Civil Applications Nos. 37 of 2005, 38 of 2005 and 40 of 2005 were filed under section 34 of the said Act for setting aside the arbitral award passed on 17-12-2004. Each of these applications was filed on the fixed Court fee stamp of Rs. 20/-. These applications have been decided by the learned Principal District Judge, Chandrapur, by her common judgment and order dated 28-2-2011. Hence, these two appeals are preferred on 30-6-2011 under section 37 of the said Act on the fixed Court fee stamp of Rs. 20/-.

(3.) Relying upon the provision of section 3A of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, introduced by the Bombay Court Fees (Amendment) Ordinance, 2009, i.e. the Maharashtra Act No. IX of 2010, with effect from 1-9-2009, Shri Subodh Dharmadhikari, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri A.K. Shukul, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 in Arbitration Appeal No. 6 of 2011 and for the respondent No. 7 in Arbitration Appeal No. 7 of 2011, has urged that the appellants are required to pay the Court fee at the rate of one-half of the ad valorem on the amount or the value of the award sought to be set aside, and upon payment of such Court fee, the matter will be out of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge of this Court, which is to the extent of Rs. 50 lakhs, and it will have to be decided by the Division Bench. He submits that the Maharashtra Act No. IX of 2010 was brought into force during the pendency of the applications under section 34 of the said Act for setting aside the arbitral award, and since the appeals have been preferred on 30-6-2011, the same are governed by the said provision.