Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CRA/285/2009 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 285 of 2009
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================
P
K ENGINEERING - Applicant(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
URJHA VIKAS NIGAM LTD - Opponent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR DEEP D
VYAS for
Applicant(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 11/05/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. The
present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Civil
Procedure Code has been preferred by the petitioner original
opponent in First Appeal No.4538/2007 and the applicant of Cross
Objections (Stamp) No.124/2007 challenging the impugned order dated
27.04.2009 passed by the Taxing Officer holding that the Court fees
paid on the memo of cross objection is not proper as per the
valuation made and Court fees is required to be paid under the
Gujarat Court Fees Act, 2004.
2. The
short question which is posed for consideration of this Court is
whether in a suit which is filed / instituted prior to the Gujarat
Court Fees Act coming into force, in an Appeal against the judgment
and order passed by the learned trial Court in the said suit and/or
in the cross objection in Appeal which is filed against the judgment
and decree passed by the learned trial Court which was instituted
prior to coming into force of the Gujarat Court Fees Act, the Court
fees is leviable and payable as per the Gujarat Court Fees Act which
is prevailing at the time when the First Appeal and/or cross
objections are instituted ?
3. As
such the controversy raised in the present Revision Application is
now not res integra and is
covered by the decision of Full Bench of this Court in case of C.N.
Brothers and Others v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmedabad
reported in AIR 1961 GUJARAT 144 and the subsequent decision of the
Division Bench in the case of Mahendra
Ratilal Patel
and another v. Patel Nagindas Keshavlal and others reported
in AIR 1963 GUJARAT 40 [which followed the earlier Full Bench
decision in the case of C.N. Brothers (Supra)]. In the case of
Mahendra Ratilal and Another (Supra), the Division Bench in para 10
has specifically held and observed that the computation of the claim
involved in an Appeal presented after the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959
came into force should be made in accordance with the provisions of
the new Act, although the suit in respect of which the Appeal has
been filed was instituted at a time when the Court Fees Act, 1870 was
in force. Applying the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the
present case, it is to be held that in a case where the suit was
instituted prior to coming into force
of the Gujarat Court Fees Act, 2004 and the matter is carried in
Appeal and/or cross objections are preferred in an Appeal against the
judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court passed in a
suit which was instituted prior to coming into force of Gujarat Court
Fees Act, 2004, and the Appeal and/or cross objections are instituted
after coming into force of Gujarat Court Fees Act, 2004, the Court
fees is required to be paid under the Gujarat Court Fees Act, 2004
i.e. at the time when the First Appeal and/or cross objections are
instituted.
4. In
view of the above, it cannot be said that Taxing Officer has
committed any error and/or has committed any illegality in holding
that the Court fees paid on memo of cross objections is not proper as
per the valuation made and the Court fees is required to be paid
under the Gujarat Court Fees Act, 2004.
5. At
this stage, Shri Dhaval Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of
the petitioner has requested to extend the time to pay the Court fees
on the cross objections which is required to be paid now as per the
decision of the Taxing Officer which is confirmed by this Court. In
the facts and circumstances of the case, time to pay the Court fees
on cross objections is hereby extended upto 14th May 2010.
6. In
view of the above, there is no substance in the present Civil
Revision Application which deserves to be dismissed and is,
accordingly, dismissed.
(M.R.
Shah, J.)
*menon
Top