JUDGMENT: (PER D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) 1. This matter came to be placed before us in the following circumstances:- 2 The appellant Harjinder Singh filed an appeal before Nagpur Bench of this Court challenging an order dated 3.7.2007 passed by the Principal District Judge, Nagpur in Miscellaneous Civil application no.448 of 2005. That miscellaneous civil application was filed by one Paramjeet Singh under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1996 Act), challenging an Award dated 16.4.2005. By his order dated 3.7.2007, the Principal District Judge, Nagpur, allowed that application and set aside the Award. It appears that, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case “Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Vs. Govardhani Constructions Company, 2007(2) Bombay Cases Reporter 835” office of the High Court raised an objection that court fee as per Article 1 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act is payable on the memorandum of appeal filed under Section 37 of the 1996 Act. The appellant filed a civil application praying for time to deposit the deficit court fee. It appears that the application came before a Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur and before the Division Bench it was 3 contended by the learned Counsel appearing for appellant, despite having made an application for time to pay deficit court fee, that the judgment of the Division bench in the “Govardhani Constructions Company” case is not proper and that he cannot be asked to pay court fee as per Article 1 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court fees Act. In view of that objection, the Division Bench has considered the judgments of the Division Bench in case of “Govardhani Constructions Company” and in the case of “Jindal Drilling & Industries Ltd.”, and found itself unable to agree with the conclusion reached in those two judgments, and therefore, directed the office to place the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench to consider the issue. We had considered the identical question in Arbitration Petition no.340 of 2007 and other connected matters and therefore, we heard the learned Counsel appearing for appellants on 13.10.2008. 2. We had considered the identical question in Arbitration Petition no.340 of 2007 and other connected matters and therefore, we heard the learned Counsel appearing for appellants on 13.10.2008. 2. For the reasons recorded by us in our order passed in Writ Petition no.4064 OF 2008 alongwith Arbitration no.340 OF 2007 and other connected 4 matters, we hold that Article 3 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act is not applicable to a petition filed under Section 34 or for a memorandum of appeal filed under Section 37 of the 1996 Act. When a memorandum of appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Bombay Court Fees Act challenging an order passed in a petition filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act before this Court, payment of Court fees will be governed by Article 13 of Schedule II of the Bombay Court Fees Act. The issue referred, therefore, is accordingly answered. The matter, therefore, now be placed before the appropriate Division Bench for further orders. Reference answered