RAJABAI RAJREDDY AKITWAR, W/O LATE RAJREDDY AKITWAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, SECUNDARABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the revision filed under Section 5(2) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 ("the Court Fees Act") read with Rule 4(v) of Chapter V of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, the order of the Taxing Officer and the Deputy Registrar, High Court, Bench at Nagpur, passed on 5-8-2016 in First Appeal Stamp No.6175 of 2016, is challenged. The Taxing Officer has held that the applicants have to pay the deficit court fees of Rs. 12,405/ on the memo of appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 ("the Claims Tribunal Act").

(2.) Dr. (Smt.) Shalini PhansalkarJoshi, J., by her order dated 282017, noticed two conflicting views taken by the two Coordinate Benches of this Court and, therefore, referred the following legal issue for consideration by the Larger Bench :

(3.) In the decision of this Court in Sumitradevi's case, it was an appeal filed under Section 23 of the Claims Tribunal Act challenging the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal on the application under Section 16(1) read with Section 13(1A) of the said Act for the injury suffered by the deceased and it was held that the court fee was payable on the amount or value of the award sought to be set aside or modified according to the scale prescribed under Article 1, as required by Article 3 of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act.