R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:- Heard. A preliminary objection is sought to be raised on behalf of the respondent about deficit court fee being paid on the appeal by the appellant. It is the contention of the respondent that the appellant is liable to pay court fee in terms of Article 1 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, hereinafter called as "the said Act", and not in terms of Article 13(c) of Schedule II thereof. In the alternative, it is sought to be contended that the appellant is liable to pay court fee at least in terms of Article 3 of Schedule I of the said Act. The appellant having paid the court fee in terms of Article 13 of Schedule II of the said Act, the appeal is liable to be rejected in limine. On the other hand, the appellant insists that the provisions of law as regards the payment of court fees, which are attracted in the matter, are essentially those comprised under Article 13 of Schedule II of the said Act and none other.

2. The learned advocate for the respondent has drawn our attention to the decision of the Learned Single Judge of this court in Sumitradevi Mahipal Kureel Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (2005)4 Mh.L.J.133: [200S(4) ALL MR 253] whereas learned counsel appearing for the s appellant has placed reliance in the decisions in the matters of Taxing Officer, High Court, Appellate Side Vs. Jamnadas Dharamdas & Ors., reported in AIR 1956 Bombay 563; State Bank Viram Co-op. Housing Soc., Ahmedabad Vs. M/s. Pankaj & Co. & Anr., reported in 1979 (VoI.XX) Gujarat Law Reporter 118 and Paramjeet Singh Patheja Vs. ICDS Ltd., reported in JT 2006(10) SC 41 : [2007 ALL SCR 24].

3. This appeal arises from the judgment dated 20th September, 2006 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Arbitration Petition No.159 of 2006. By the impugned judgment, the Learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, while holding that there is no case for interference in the award passed by the Arbitrator. Obviously, the appeal has been filed in terms of the provisions of law comprised under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

4. Section 5 of the said Act deals with the fees to be paid on documents to be filed in the Courts. It is to be found in Chapter III of the said Act which deals with the subject of "Computation of Fees". Sub-section (1) of Section 5 provides that no document of any of the kinds specified as chargeable in the first or second Schedule to the said Act annexed shall be filed, exhibited or recorded in any Court of Justice, or shall be received or furnished by any public officer, unless in respect of such document there has been paid a fee of an amount not less than that indicated by either of the said Schedules as the proper fee for such document. Schedule I deals with "Ad valorem fees" whereas Schedule II provides for "fixed fees". Article 1 of Schedule I prescribes the fees for plaint or memorandum of appeal not otherwise provided in the said Act or of cross-objection presented to any Civil or Revenue Court. Undoubtedly, therefore, any appeal filed, for which no other provision is made in relation to the payment of court fees in the said Act will have to be accompanied by the court fee as prescribed under Article 1 of Schedule I of the said Act.

5. Article 13 of Schedule II of the said Act provides that memorandum of appeal when the appeal is not from a decree or an order having the force of a decree and is presented to any Civil Court other than the High Court, or to any Revenue Court or Executive Officer other than the High Court or Chief Controlling Revenue or Executive Authority, shall be accompanied by the court fee of Rs.5/-, when it is presented to the Chief Controlling Executive or Revenue Authority, it should be accompanied by Rs.10/- and when it is presented to High Court, it should be accompanied by Rs.25/-. Apparently, Article 13 of Schedule II of the said Act will apply to the appeals

Click Here to Read the rest of this document