SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Ker) 592

K.THANKAPPAN, J.B.KOSHY
Elsie Felix – Appellant
Versus
Larsen & Toubro Ltd. – Respondent


Judgment :-

Koshy, J.

The question to be considered in these appeals is regarding the quantum of court fees payable when an appeal is filed against an order passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1996 Act”) in setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award.

2. When court fee was calculated under Schedule II, Article 4 (c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the Court Fees Act”), in the unnumbered appeal as Rs.97,447-(1/3 court fee of Rs.32.483/- was paid at the time of filing), objection was raised by the Registry. When the very same order was challenged by another appellant in Arbitration Appeal No.10 of 2003, court fee paid was only Rs.250/- as according to the registry court fee payable is under Schedule II, Article 3(iii) (A) (1) (a) in view of the decision reported in Sundaram Finance Ltd. V. Radhamma, 2003 (3) K.L.T.289. The Registry also took the objection in the unnumbered appeal that two appeals should have been filed as it was a common order. Before dealing with the above question, we shall briefly state the facts of the case.

3. An arbitration



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top