By the Court.—Being aggrieved against the Award dated 25.8.2005 the Appellant before this Court preferred an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter to be referred as ‘New Act’) before the District Judge, Lucknow, for setting aside the arbitral Award. The Munsarim submitted a report that a Court fee of Rs. 200/- was payable on the said application. An objection was raised by the Appellant that no Court fee was leviable as such the report of Munsarim was incorrect. The District Judge vide its order dated 21.6.2006 confirmed the report and overruled the objections raised by the Appellant and directed it to pay Court fee of Rs. 200/- within the time stipulated in the said order. It is against the said order that the Appellant approached this Court through the present F.A.F.O.

2. We have heard Sri Virendra Mishra, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Sri Brijesh Saxena in opposition.

3. Sri Mishra submitted that the Court Fees Act, 1870 provided payment of Court fee of Rs. 200/- on an application under the Arbitration Act, 1940 (Old Act) for setting aside an Award, when value exceeded Rs. 10,000/-. He drew the attention of this Court towards Section 18(1) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, 1870 which contemplates that for an application under Section 14 or Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 or any application to set aside an Award, under the said Act the Court fee payable is Rs. 200/- when such value exceeds an amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Shri Mishra submitted that in view of the fact that the old Act now stands repealed and in the New Act there is no such provision for imposition of Court fee on the application for setting aside the Award, therefore, the report of Munsirim to that effect on the face of it was incorrect and as such the learned District Judge committed a manifest illegality in accepting the said report and overruling the objections of the Appellant and directing it to pay Court fee to the extent of Rs. 200/- on the application for setting aside the Award. He further argued that almost 11 years have already elapsed from the date of repeal of Old Act and introduction of the New Act, still neither any notification nor any order to the effect that upon an application for setting aside Award, payment of Court fee is required as provided under the old Act has been issued. According to him the intention of the legislature clearly appears to be that under the New Act no Court fee is leviable if an application for setting aside the Award is preferred.

4. Sri Brijesh Saxena, in opposition, argued that Section 34 of the New Act provides for an application to set aside an Award, analogous provision under the Old Act being Sections 30 and 33. According to him even if there is no amendment in the Court Fee Act, still the intention of the legislature throughout had been for payment of Court fee on the application to set aside an Award. As per his submission since the Court Fee Act also does not lay down any provision for exemption of Court fee on any of the application, therefore, it cannot be said that the legislature intended to exempt application for setting aside an Award under the New Act from payment of Court fee.

5. Section 30 and Section 33 of the Old Act reads as follows :

“30. Grounds for setting aside award.—An award shall not be set aside on one or more of the following grounds, namely :

(a) that an arbitrator or umpire has misconducted himself or the proceedings;

(b) that an award has been made after the issue of an order by the Court superseding the arbitration or after the arbitration proceedings have become invalid under Section 35;

(c) that an award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid.

33. Arbitration agreement or award to be contested by application.—Any party to an arbitration agreement or any person claiming under him desiring to challenge the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement or an award or to have the effect of either determi