Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 400 (JK)

Enn Aay Enterprises v. State Of J. &K.

2003-12-15

S.K.GUPTA

body2003
Note of the Registry indicate that in Appeal No. 125/2003 filed against the judgment and decree dated 16.8.2003 passed by the District Judge, Budgam, it has been valued at Rs. 13,50,000/- for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction for which court fee worth Rs. 12,447.50 has been affixed. It is further indicated that according to the amended Court Fee Amendment Bill 2000 the appellant was required to pay court fee worth Rs. 29,400/-. The Registry therefore, has pointed out a deficiency in the court fee worth Rs. 16,973/- to be made good by the appellant. 2. It is clearly borne out from the appeal that the appellant has himself valued the appeal at Rs. 13,50,000/- and as such is required to pay advalorem court fee, as per the amended Court Fee Amendment Bill 2000. 3. Learned counsel appealing for the appellant however, submitted that the suit came to be instituted before the District Judge on 01.05.1999 prior to the amendment of the Statute enabling levy of higher court fee. His further submission is that in the matter of appeal filed after that date against a decree passed in the suit instituted prior to the amendment, the court fee payable on the memorandum of appeal would be the fee payable at the time of filing of the suit. To support his contention, Mr. Qayoom has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in State of Bombay V General Films Exchange Ltd (1960 SCR 640). The Apex court while dealing with analogous proposition held as under:- "In 1954 certain amendments were made in the Court Fees Act, 1870, as applied to Bombay by the Court Fees (Bombay Amendments) Act, 1954, by which the system of charging court fee in the Bombay High Court on the Original Side way altered and instead of a fixed fee payable on the plaint etc, ad valorem fees became leviable. The amendments came into force on April 1, 1954, but there was no provision, express or by necessary intendment, for giving them retrospective effect. The amendments came into force on April 1, 1954, but there was no provision, express or by necessary intendment, for giving them retrospective effect. In respect of appeals filed after that date against decrees passed in suits instituted before that date, the question arose as to whether the court fees payable on the memoranda of appeal were according to the law in force at the date of the filing of the suits or according to the law in force at the date of the filing of appeals : Held, that the court fees payable on the memoranda of appeal were according to the law as it stood at the date of filing of the said suits." 4. Placing reliance on the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, the court fee payable on the memorandum of appeal would be according to the law in force at the date of filing of the suit. The court fee in this case affixed with the memorandum of appeal is in accordance with the law as it stood on the date of filing of the suit, viz., prior to the amendment of the statue enabling levy of higher court fee and is thus correct. 5. Registry is directed to list the case for admission in the next cause list.