Syndicate Bank vs Nishad Mathew - 2015 Supreme(Ker) 1250

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 Supreme(Ker) 1250

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.R. Ramachandra Menon and Anil K. Narendran, JJ.
Syndicate Bank – Appellant
Vs.
Nishad Mathew and Ors. - Respondent
Z. Arb. A. No. 155 of 2015
Decided On : 17-11-2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :K.T. Shyamkumar and Harish R. Menon, Advocates

Headnote:
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 37 & 9 - Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 - Schedule II Article 4(ii), Schedule II Article 3(iii)(A)(1)(a) - Court Fees - Payable - Held, Provision clearly deals with the memorandum of appeal under the 'Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996' and the fees stipulated on slab, so as to meet the different circumstances mentioned therein, on an 'ad valorem'basis - Court does not require any second thought to hold that the defect noted by the Registry is quite in order - Section 52 of the Act deals with the appeals on a general basis and not in respect of appeals arising from orders, though wider interpretation could have been possible till amendment of the provision

ORDER :

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

1. Dispute is mainly with regard to the actual court-fee that is payable in respect of the appeal preferred under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against an order passed by the Additional District Court-V, Ernakulam under Section 9 of the Act. The case of the appellant/Bank is that, the appellant is required to satisfy only the court-fee which was originally paid in the Court of the first instance, which is ` 50/- by virtue of Section 52 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. But a defect has been noted by the Registry of this Court, pointing out that 'ad valorem' court-fee has to be satisfied in terms of Schedule II, Article 4, sub-clause (ii) and that it cannot be with reference to Schedule II Article 3(iii)(A)(1)(a). Hence the matter stands listed for consideration before the Court to pass orders on judicial side.

2. For the purpose of easy understanding, a reference to Section 52 of the Act as well as the relevant articles in the concerned schedule as aforesaid is necessary and hence they are re-produced below:

"52. The fee payable in an appeal shall be the same as the fee that would be payable in the Court of first instance on the subject-matter of the appeal.

Provided that, in levying fee on a memorandum of appeal against a final decree by a person whose appeal against the preliminary decree passed by the Court of first Instance or by the Court of appeal is pending, credit shall be given for the fee paid by such person in the appeal against the preliminary decree;

Provided further that one third of the fee payable in an appeal shall be paid at the stage of admission of first appeal or second appeal as the case may be and the balance shall be paid within such period, not less than fifteen days from the date of such admission as may be specified by the Court, in case the appeal is admitted.

Provided also that the Court may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing extend the period upto thirty days."

SCHEDULE II

Article	Particulars		Proper fee
1.	xxxx	xxxx
2.	xxxx	xxxx
3.	Memorandum of appeal from an order inclusive of an order determining any question under Section 47 or Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and not otherwise provided for when presented-
	(i) xxxx	xxxx
	(ii) xxxx	xxxx
	(iii) to the High Court-
	(A) From an order other than an order under the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958.		Ten Rupees
	(1) Where the order was passed by a Subordinate Court or other authority-
	(a) If the order relates to a suit or proceeding, the value of which exceeds one thousand rupees		Twenty Five Rupees
	xxxx	xxxx
	xxxx	xxxx
4.	Memorandum of appeal (under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996)-
	(i) Where the appeal is from an order of a Munsiffis Court or an order of a superior court in a case where the value for the purpose of jurisdiction does not exceed rupees fifteen thousand.		Fifty Rupees
	(ii) in other cases where the amount or value of the subject-matter-
	(a) does not exceed rupees one lakh, for every hundred rupees, or part thereof upto rupees one lakh.		Two Rupees
	(b) exceeds rupees one lakh for every hundred rupees,or part thereof, in excess of rupees one lakh upto rupees five lakhs.		Four Rupees
	(c) exceeds rupees five lakhs, for every hundred rupees, or part thereof, in excess of rupees five lakhs		One Rupee

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, insofar as Section 52 of the Act is quite categoric, there cannot be any added or higher liability than the necessity to satisfy court-fees paid in the Court of first instance. Reliance is also sought to be placed on the decision rendered by a Division Bench of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(Ker) 1250

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAP.R. Ramachandra Menon and Anil K. Narendran, JJ.Syndicate Bank – AppellantVs.Nishad Mathew and Ors. - RespondentZ. Arb. A. No. 155 of 2015Decided On : 17-11-2015

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.R. Ramachandra Menon and Anil K. Narendran, JJ.
Syndicate Bank – Appellant
Vs.
Nishad Mathew and Ors. - Respondent
Z. Arb. A. No. 155 of 2015
Decided On : 17-11-2015