In this arbitration petition, the petitioner filed a Section 34 application but failed to pay the requisite deficit court fees under the Bombay Court Fees Act, 2010. The High Court of Bombay dismissed the petition for want of prosecution despite being admitted.
Petition dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-payment of deficit court fees.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
arbp766.09.sxw
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 766 OF 2009 C.D. Vora ....Petitioner.
Vs. Chief Regional Manager, Mumbai L.P.G. Regional Office ....Respondent.
None for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. Mahadik for the Respondent.
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 25th October, 2010
P.C.:
The Government of Maharashtra had promulgated the Bombay Court-fees (Amendment) Ordinance, 2009, on 11th August, 2009 which had come into force on the 1st September, 2009. By notification dated 27th April, 2010 the same is now enacted as an Act called “The Bombay Court-fees (Amendment and Continuance) Act, 2010”, having given the date as announced earlier i.e. on 1st September, 2009.
2 This Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is dated 7th September, 2009, lodged on 8th September, 2009 and the filing endorsement is 6th October, 2009. Therefore, on the date of lodging
2 arbp766.09.sxw
itself, the Petitioner was bound to pay the Court fees as per the Bombay Court Fees Act, 2010 which the Petitioner failed to pay till this date.
3 None for the Petitioner. Though the opportunity was granted to the Petitioner to take steps and pay the deficit Court fees in view of the amendment to the Bombay Court Fees Act, by conditional order dated 13th April, 2010, there is nothing on record to show that the Petitioner has paid the said deficit court fees.
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an arbitration petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be admitted when the petitioner failed to pay the deficit court fees mandated by the Bombay Court Fee
3 provisions across 3 enactments
C.D. Vora
Chief Regional Manager, Mumbai L.P.G. Regional Office
Anoop V. Mohta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
