Back
2019 Supreme(Telangana) 101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, JJ.
M/s. Soma Hyderabad City Centre Private Limited, Rep. by its Director, P. Madhav Rao - Petitioner
Versus
Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (formerly APSRTC Limited), rep. by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director - Respondent
I.A. (SR) No. 87713 of 2018 in COM.C.A.No.43 of 2018
Decided On : 20-03-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Vedula Venkata Ramana, Senior Counsel.
For the Respondent:Sriram Polali & The Advocate General.
Headnote:
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 13 (1) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 94 and Order XLIII - Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 - Section 66 - Termination of authorization agreement - Dismissal of Suit - Excess Court fee is paid by mistake or inadvertence seeking Appeal - Seeking refund of amount - Jurisdiction of the Commercial Courts; Held, Article - 4 deals with appeals arising out of orders passed on applications under Section 34 - If special Law is silent, then the provisions of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act will automatically apply - Article - 4 deals with appeals arising out of orders passed on applications under Section 34 - payment by the appellant, of the same Court fee as paid in the Court of first instance, was in accordance with law - No Court fee in excess of what is liable to be paid been paid - Question of refund under Section 66 does not arise - Petition dismissed. Para 21, 23, 24
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
1. This is an application filed by the appellant in the above Commercial Court Appeal seeking refund of an amount of Rs.2,14,16,852/- (Rupees Two Crores Fourteen Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Two Only) paid by them towards Court Fee on the above appeal.
2. Heard Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant and the learned Advocate General for the State of Telangana.
3. The petitioner/appellant filed a suit in O.S. No.494 of 2012 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, praying (i) for a declaration that the termination of the authorization agreement dated 21.08.2008 and the amending agreement dated 14.10.2009 had occurred due to the event of default committed by the respondent/defendant (ii) for a declaration that the respondent/defendant is not entitled to en-cash the performance bank guarantees and (iii) for a decree for payment of a sum of Rs.199.12 Crores. The respondent/ defendant filed a written statement not merely disputing the liability, but also sought a decree by way of a counter-claim for refund of a sum of Rs.68,72,11,516/- (Rupees Sixty Eight Crores Seventy Two Lakhs Eleven Thousand Five Hundred and Sixteen Only) including penalty on the belated payments together with interest.
4. The said suit was later transferred to the file of the Commercial Court, after the issue of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and renumbered as C.O.S. No.44 of 2016. By a judgment and decree dated 10.10.2018, the Commercial Court dismissed the suit as well as the counter-claim and the plaintiff has come up with the above Commercial Court Appeal, under Section 13 (1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 94 and Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’).
5. Before the trial Court, the petitioner/plaintiff valued the relief of declaration sought by them notionally at Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and paid a Court Fee of Rs.2,386/- (Rupees Two Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Six Only) under Section 24 (d) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short ‘A.P. Act, 1956’). On the claim for recovery of money to the tune of Rs.199.12 Crores, the petitioner/plaintiff paid a Court fee of Rs.1,99,14,426/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety Nine Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Six Only) under Section 20 of the A.P. Act 7 of 1956.
6. While filing the above appeal, the petitioner/appellant paid a Court fee of Rs.2,14,16,852/-, by way of RTGS Transfer in favour of the Registrar (Judicial). Thereafter the petitioner seems to have paid another sum of Rs.2,000/-, on the ground that only a fixed Court fee of Rs.2,000/- is payable on appeals arising out of judgments and decrees of the Commercial Courts. After making payment of the additional amount of Rs.2,000/-, the petitioner/appellant has come up with the above application seeking refund of the Court fee of Rs.2,14,16,852/- already paid by them in the first instance.
7. Since the Office entertained a doubt with regard to the maintainability of the prayer for refund, the papers in the above application, I.A. (SR) No.87713 of 2018, were returned. The learned counsel for the petitioner re-presented the papers and the application was posted for hearing in Open Court.
8. In view of the nature of the dispute that arises for consideration in this application, we ordered notice to the learned Advocate General on 04.02.2019 and sought his assistance, on the limited question as to the Court fee payable on appeals arising out of judgments and decrees of Commercial Courts.
9. The contention of Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel for the petitioner/appellant is that Commercial Court is a Special Forum created by a Central enactment viz., Commercial Courts Act, 2015; that though the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 is a State enactment which repealed the Court Fees Act, 1870 and th
