The judgment establishes that the liability for court fees under the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 is contingent upon the registration of the petition and emphasizes the procedural consequences of non-removal of office objections within the specified time frame.

P.C.

The petitioner/claimant had invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act) and thereby challenged the Award dated 31.08.2009 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. The said Arbitration Petition was lodged on 27.11.2009. The Office raised objection on 03.12.2009. The petitioner removed the same on 08.02.2010. Even on that date, there was no office objection about the court fee in view of the amendment to the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 by Ordinance No.XII of 2009 dated 11.08.2009 (for short, the Ordinance).

The said Ordinance came into force from 01.09.2009. The relevant clauses are as under:

1. (1) This Ordinance may be called the Bombay Court-fees (Amendment) Ordinance, 2009.

(2) It shall come into force on the 1st September 2009.

2. In Schedule I to the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959, -

(a) in article 3, the words and figures "otherwise than under the Arbitration Act, 1940" shall be deleted;

(b) after article 3, the following article shall be inserted, namely:-

3A.Application or petition A fee of one-half (including memorandum of appeal) of the ad valorem to set aside or modify arbitral award fee on the amount or value of the under the Arbitration and award sought to be set aside or Conciliation Act, 1996. modified, according to the scale prescribed under Article 1."

2. The petitioner, however, moved this Petition on lodging number and this Court on 14.01.2010 issued notice to the respondents. Even, at that time, there was no objection about the deficit court fee as recorded above.

3. On 11.03.2010, on instructions, the learned counsel for the petitioner, circulated the matter on board for withdrawal. The other side had no objection for the same. This Court disposed of the said Petition as withdrawn, but with following observation:

"2 The Petition is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn, subject to payment of Court fees pursuance to the amendment of the Bombay Court Fees Act."

4. The Office, therefore, in view of this Order, raised objection on 19.03.2010 of deficit court fee of Rs.1,21,815/- being one half of the ad velorem fee as per the new amendment.

5. Rule 986 of the High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980, which is relevant, reads as under:

"R.986 Rejection of plaint, memo of appeal, execution application and applications and petition of original nature for non-removal of office objections. Every plaint, memo of appeal, application for execution and all other applications and petitions of the original nature, including the petition by an indigent person, in which the Plaintiff/Appellant/Applicant/Petitioner does not remove the office objections within 30 days from the date of lodging the said documents, shall be placed before the Prothonotary and Senior Master for directions, who may reject such documents for non-removal of office objections. Rule 133 of these rules will apply to such rejection."

6. In view of above, therefore, even if any plaint, application and/or Petition, filed and if party/petitioner fail to remove office objection within 30 days from the date of lodging, the Petition or the matter gets listed before the Prothonotary for direction, who may reject such Application/petition for non-removal of office objections. Therefore, even if such Petition is lodged which is permissible under the law, the party is entitled to remove office objection to get the matter registered. If party fails to remove the office objection including the office objection of deficit court fee, the matter may be dismissed for want of prosecution. The Petition was filed by paying the then existing court fee of Rs.200/- as per the provisions prior to 01.09.2009. Therefore, in the normal consequences, the petition could have been dismissed for want of prosecution for non-payment of deficit court fee.

7. There was no court fee payable of this nature prior to the ordinance. The Government Notification under the Bombay Court Fees Act dated 01.08.1959 referring to Secti