JUDGMENT : 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. 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. 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 the same received the assent of the President, the same cannot stand after the advent of the Central enactment, especially in respect of matters which fall within the purview of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015; that even the provisions of the CPC, 1908 were drastically amended by Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015; that Section 21 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 conferred overriding effect for the Act upon any other law for the time being in force; and that so long as an appeal under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is not included in Schedule - II of the A.P. Act, 1956, what is payable on an appeal under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is only a fixed Court fee of Rs.2,000/-. 10. The learned senior counsel also contended that once it is established that Court fee has been paid in excess of what is actually payable, the case would fall under the category of fee paid by mistake or inadvertence covered by Section 66 of the A.P. Act 1956, and that therefore the above application is maintainable in law. 11. Before we proceed further, we should clarify two things, viz., (i) that the refusal of the office to number the above application as though it is not maintainable, is not proper; and (ii) that there is no doubt about the applicability of Section 66 of the A.P. Act, 1956, to cases where excess Court fee is paid by mistake or inadvertence. Therefore, we direct the office to number the above application. But, the question whether the petitioner/appellant would be entitled to relief under Section 66, would depend upon whether the petitioner has actually paid Court fee in excess or not. 12. Therefore, we direct the office to number the above application. But, the question whether the petitioner/appellant would be entitled to relief under Section 66, would depend upon whether the petitioner has actually paid Court fee in excess or not. 12. That takes us to the core issue as to whether the petitioner had paid Court fee over and above what is payable on the above appeal. 13. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Commercial Courts, Act, 2015 was passed with a view to provide a hi-tech Fast- Track Mechanism for the effective and speedy disposal of commercial disputes of specified value. The Act was a sequel to the 188th Report of the Law Commission of India. But, the Bill that was introduced in 2009 gave rise to a lot of queries and hence it was sent back to the Law Commission. After the Law Commission came back with its 253rd Report, an Ordinance was promulgated on 23.10.2015. Finally, the Act was passed. 14. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 provided for the establishment of Commercial Courts and Commercial Appellate Courts (as well as Commercial Division of High Court and Commercial Appellate Division wherever the High Courts have ordinary original civil jurisdiction), pre-institution mediation and settlement, appeals, transfer from the normal Civil Courts to the Commercial Courts and amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure. 15. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 does not speak anywhere about the Court fee payable either in a suit or in an appeal. While the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Commercial Court depends upon the valuation of the subject matter of the suit in accordance with Section 12, the territorial jurisdiction of a Commercial Court depends upon the Notification under which it is created and vested with jurisdiction. Section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 reads as follows: “6. Jurisdiction of Commercial Court.-The Commercial Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits and applications relating to a commercial dispute of a Specified Value arising out of the entire territory of the State over which it has been vested territorial jurisdiction. Section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 reads as follows: “6. Jurisdiction of Commercial Court.-The Commercial Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits and applications relating to a commercial dispute of a Specified Value arising out of the entire territory of the State over which it has been vested territorial jurisdiction. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, a commercial dispute shall be considered to arise out of the entire territory of the State over which a Commercial Court has been vested jurisdiction, if the suit or application relating to such commercial dispute has been instituted as per the provisions of sections 16 to 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).” 16. While it is left to the Commercial Court concerned under Section 12 to determine the specified value of the subject matter of the commercial dispute, it is left to the Government to decide the territorial jurisdiction, whenever a Commercial Court is constituted by a Notification. In simple terms, three different phrases determine the pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction of a Commercial Court. They are (i) commercial dispute, (ii) specified value and (iii) territorial jurisdiction. While what constitutes a commercial dispute is left to the Statute and to the Central Government under Section 2 (1) (c) to be determined, what constitutes the specified value of the subject matter is left under Section 12 (1) to be determined by the Court and what would be the territorial jurisdiction is left to be determined by the State Government which is empowered to issue not only a Notification constituting a Commercial Court, but also defining its territorial jurisdiction. 17. All that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 deals with are; (i) the nature of the disputes that would fall within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Courts; and (ii) the procedure to be followed by such Courts including Appellate Courts in adjudicating such disputes. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is completely silent about the Court fee payable on Suits and Appeals arising under the Act. Therefore, it is clear that the Act brought about only two changes, one relating to the Forum where certain disputes will be decided and another relating to the Fast-Track procedure to be adopted by such Fora. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is completely silent about the Court fee payable on Suits and Appeals arising under the Act. Therefore, it is clear that the Act brought about only two changes, one relating to the Forum where certain disputes will be decided and another relating to the Fast-Track procedure to be adopted by such Fora. Hence, it follows as a corollary that the Court fee payable on the disputes that go before the Commercial Courts would be as provided by the respective State enactments or the High Court Fee Rules, wherever the High Courts have ordinary original civil jurisdiction. 18. It is needless to point out that where the Central Law is silent as to a matter covered by the State enactment, no repugnancy or inconsistency would arise. The Court fee payable on all suits or applications or appeals or revisions in all Fora within the State of Andhra Pradesh, is determined in accordance with the A.P. Act, 1956. Section 2 (2) of the A.P. Act, 1956, as rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General, makes it clear that the provisions of A.P. Act, 1956 relating to the levy of fee shall be subject to the provisions of any other law relating to the levy of fee in respect of proceedings under such law. Therefore, the only exception carved out under Section 2 (2) of the A.P. Act, 1956 are proceedings where the law under which such proceedings are initiated, by itself prescribes a different fee. 19. Even the expression “Court” is defined in Section 3 (ii) of the A.P. Act, 1956 to mean “any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court and includes a Tribunal or other Authority having jurisdiction under any special or local law to decide questions affecting the rights of parties”. A Commercial Court is nothing but an ordinary Civil Court constituted as a Commercial Court under Section 3 (i) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Therefore, it will fall within the definition of the expression “Court” under Section 3 (ii) of the A.P. Act, 1956. Hence, in the absence of any prescription contained in the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, with regard to the fee payable on commercial disputes, the provisions of the A.P. Act, 1956 would automatically hold the field. 20. Therefore, it will fall within the definition of the expression “Court” under Section 3 (ii) of the A.P. Act, 1956. Hence, in the absence of any prescription contained in the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, with regard to the fee payable on commercial disputes, the provisions of the A.P. Act, 1956 would automatically hold the field. 20. Section 19 of the A.P. Act, 1956 stipulates that the fee under the Act shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of Chapters IV, VI and VIII read with Schedules - I and II. Section 49 of the A.P. Act, 1956 stipulates that the Court fee payable in an appeal shall be the same as the fee that would be payable in the Court of first instance on the subject matter of the appeal. 21. Since the main crux of the argument of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner revolves around the entries in Schedule II, we may take a note of the entries in Schedule II. While Schedule I contains the rates of Ad-valorem fees payable on plaints, written statements claiming a set-off or counter claim and certain other proceedings, Schedule - II covers certain petitions and appeals under some special enactments. It is true that under Article - 4 of Schedule - II, a fixed Court fee is payable on appeals filed against the orders under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. But, it does not mean that the non-inclusion of an appeal to the Commercial Appellate Court under Article-4 would enable an appellant to pay fixed Court fee on an appeal arising out of the dismissal of a suit for money. To be entitled to claim a right to pay a fixed Court fee, the petitioner/appellant should clearly come within one of the Articles mentioned in Schedule - II. In the absence of any specific Article in Schedule - II to the A.P. Act, 1956 dealing with an appeal before a Commercial Appellate Court, Section 49 of the A.P. Act, 1956 would hold the field and the petitioner cannot escape payment of the same Court fee as payable in the Court of first instance. 22. In fact, there is a reason behind Article - 4 of Schedule - II dealing with appeals arising out of orders on applications under Section 34. 22. In fact, there is a reason behind Article - 4 of Schedule - II dealing with appeals arising out of orders on applications under Section 34. The Court fee payable on an application to set aside an Award under Section - 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is covered by Article 11 (m). Therefore, Article - 4 deals with appeals arising out of the orders passed on the applications under Section 34. 23. The time-tested rule relating to payment of Court fee is that if the special Law prescribes a fee payable in the proceedings under the special Law, the same would prevail over the Court fees and Suits Valuation Act. If the special Law is silent, then the provisions of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act will automatically apply. 24. In view of the above, the payment by the appellant, of the same Court fee as paid in the Court of first instance, was in accordance with law and no Court fee in excess of what is liable to be paid has been paid. Therefore, the question of refund under Section 66 does not arise. Hence, this application is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.