9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the claim petition for recovery of the amount from the respondents is in the nature of a suit and as such ad valorem court-fee should be paid. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Nature of the Claim Petition and Court-Fee: The primary issue in this case was whether the claim petition filed by the official liquidator for the recovery of Rs. 20,318.67 from the respondents is in the nature of a suit, thereby necessitating the payment of ad valorem court-fee as prescribed in article 1, Schedule I, of the Court Fees Act, 1870. The respondents argued that any action by the official liquidator for the recovery of the amount from the debtors of the company amounts to a suit. Consequently, the court-fee should be paid ad valorem on the amount claimed. They relied on judgments from the Calcutta High Court and the Mysore High Court to support their contention. The court examined several precedents, including: - In re Osier Electric Lamp Manufacturing Company Ltd. [1967] 37 Comp Cas 306 (Cal): The court noted that the observations in this case did not address the matter of court-fee but only the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and other competent courts. - Narendra Nath Saha v. Official Receiver, High Court, Calcutta [1969] 39 Comp Cas 258 (Cal): Similar to the previous case, this judgment also did not provide clarity on the issue of court-fee. - Official Liquidator, High Court of Mysore v. T. Muniswamy Achary [1970] 40 Comp Cas 489 (Mys): The Mysore High Court held that the application should be treated as a regular suit for the purpose of court-fee. However, the present court respectfully disagreed with this conclusion. The court emphasized the purpose and object of section 446(2) of the Companies Act, which is to provide a speedy and inexpensive remedy to the official liquidator. The companies (in liquidation) are generally unable to bear heavy litigation expenses. If the official liquidator is required to pay full court-fee as on a suit, the very purpose of the enactment would be defeated. The court also referred to the provisions of the Court Fees Act, stating that if a document requiring the payment of court-fee falls under more than one provision, the person liable can opt to pay the lowest fee prescribed. The court noted that such claims are filed under the Banking Regulation Act with a separate provision for court-fee. In the absence of a specific provision in the Court Fees Act for applications under section 446(2) of the Companies Act, the present petition is covered by clause (d) of article 1 in Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, which prescribes a fee of Rs. 13 for an application presented to the High Court under the Companies Act. The court concluded that the application filed by the official liquidator is directly covered by clause (d) of article 1 in Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, and the payment of Rs. 13 as court-fee is correct. The issue was decided against the respondents with no order as to costs.
|
