HIRJI VIRJI JANGBARI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the Taxing Officer under Section 5 of the Court-fees Act. Under the provisions of Rule 75A of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, Plot No. 113 in the Sion-Matunga Estate belonging to the appellant was acquired by Government for and on behalf of the Defence Authorities. As no agreement could be arrived at between the claimant and the Government with regard to the amount of compensation payable, the Government of Bombay appointed Mr. M. S. Noronha, Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, as arbitrator under Section 19 (1)(b) of the Defence of India Act, 1939,. to determine the amount of compensation payable to the claimant. The arbitrator fixed the amount payable to him at Rs. 45,355. The claimant being dissatisfied with this amount filed an appeal in which he claimed a further sum of Rs. 47,896-8-0 in addition to the amount awarded to him by the arbitrator.

(2.) THE question referred for my decision is whether the appellant should pay ad valorem Court-fee on the memorandum of appeal on the additional sum of Rs. 47,896-8-0. claimed by him, or whether he is liable to pay only fixed Court-fee as contended by him, under Clause 11 of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act.

(3.) SECTION 8 of the Court-fees Act is not itself a charging section. It merely provides a rule for computing ad valorem fee payable under the Act in certain classes of cases on the assumption that under some other provision of the Act an ad valorem fee and not a fixed fee is chargeable. Whether the memorandum of appeal in the case before me is liable to ad valorem fee or fixed court-fee has to be determined with reference to the provisions of Schedules I and II of the Act. The appeal in this case not being from a decree or an order having the force of a decree is liable only to fixed court-fee under Clause 11 of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act.