A claim for interest on debit entries in personal accounts and capital contribution is capable of valuation for the purpose of determining the amount of Court-fee payable.

Headnote:
COURT FEES - VALUATION OF SUBJECT MATTER - INTEREST CLAIMED ON DEBIT ENTRIES IN PERSONAL ACCOUNTS AND CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION - AD VALOREM COURT FEE PAYABLE - BOMBAY COURT FEES ACT, 1959, SCHEDULE I, ITEM 1.
Fact of the Case:

Appellants claimed interest on debit entries made in their personal accounts and on capital contribution in excess of the capital contribution of the other partners. The notes made by the advocates in the memoranda of appeal stated that the claims were not capable of valuation and hence a fixed Court-fee of Rs. 30 was paid.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the amounts on which interest was claimed were ascertainable and the period for which the claim was made was also ascertainable. Therefore, the claim was capable of arithmetical calculation and an ad valorem Court-fee under item 1 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959 ought to have been paid.
Issues: Whether the claim for interest on debit entries in personal accounts and capital contribution is capable of valuation for the purpose of determining the amount of Court-fee payable.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the amount of the claim was ascertainable and capable of arithmetical calculation. Therefore, a proper Court-fee under item 1 of Schedule I ought to have been paid. The Court also held that the decision of the taxing officer under section 5 of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959 was not final between the parties to the litigation and could be revised by the Court under sections 8 and 14 of the Act.
Final Decision: The Court ordered the appellants to pay an ad valorem Court-fee on the amount of their respective claims.

JUDGMENT

NAIN J.-In these three appeals the parties coming in appeal are claiming certain amounts of interest in the settlement of partnership accounts. The interest is either claimed on debit entries made in the personal accounts of the partners or on capital contribution in excess of the capital contribution of the other partners. The claim in First Appeal No. 422 of 1962 amounts to Rs. 15,425, in First Appeal No. 486 of 1962 it amounts to Rs. 14,278 and in First Appeal No. 526 of 1962 it amounts to Rs. 14,572. Mr. Pendse, appearing for defendant No. 11, who is a respondent in these appeals, has objected to the notes as to Court-fees made on the memoranda of appeal by the respective advocates for the appellants and to the valuation made in respect of the Court-fees.

2. In substance the notes put by the advocates in these three appeals state that the claims in appeal were not capable of valuation as they were regarding the interest which was not charged against defendant No. 11 and hence Court-fee of Rs. 30 was paid. It appears that the office of the Taxing Master has accepted: such notes and has proceeded to charge a fixed Court-fee of Rs. 30 in each of these appeals.

3. In our opinion, the, averments in these notes as to valuation are not factually correct. The amounts on which interest is claimed are ascertainable. The period for which the claim is made is also ascertainable. The period is from the date of suit to the date of the decree. The rate claimed is 6 per cent. per annum. The amount of the claim in each of these appeals is capable of arithmetical calculation. The note that the claim is not capable of valuation is factually wrong. Under item I of Schedule I of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959, on a memorandum of appeal not otherwise provided for in the Act an ad valorem Court-fee is to be paid on the amount of the value of the subject-matter in dispute. This amount being ascertainable and being capable of arithmetical calculation, as we have indicated above, a proper Court· fee under item 1 of Schedule I ought to have been paid.

4. Mr. Albal, appearing for the appellants in Appeal No. 486 of 1962, gave us the analogy of future mesne profits and contended that on a claim for future mesne profits no ad valorem Court-fee was payable. Section 13 provides that in a suit for recovery of possession of immoveable property and mesne profit or for mesne profits or for an account or the amount being ascertained the Court-fee has to be paid on the difference between the amount on which it is paid and the amount which is found due. In an appeal this question would not arise. By the time an appeal is filed the mesne profits have already been ascertained and the amount of the subject-matter in dispute has been ascertained and an ad valorem Court-fee under section 13 would have to be paid There is, therefore, no substance in this argument of Mr. Albal.

5. In view of the fact that we have come to the conclusion that Court-fee is payable under item 1 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959, we order that in First Appeal No. 422 of 1962 the appellants shall pay an ad valorem Court-fee under that item on an amount of Rs. 15,425 whicl1 the appellants claim in the appeal. Similarly, in First Appeal No. 486 of 1962 the appellants value their claim at Rs. 14,278 and they are ordered to pay an ad valorem Court fee under item 1 of Schedule I on that amount. Similarly in First Appeal No. 526 of 1962 the appellants value their claim at Rs. 14,572 and they are ordered to pay an ad valorem Court-fee under item No.1 of Schedule I on that amount. The amount of the Court-fee shall be paid within a fortnight. In the meanwhile, the appeals shall stand stayed. If the amount of the Court-fee is not paid within stipulated period, the appeals shall be put up for further orders.

6. Before parting with these matters we deal with an additional point taken up by Mr. Lalit in First Appeal No. 526 of 1962.

7. In this matter, the advocate for the appell

Click Here to Read the rest of this document