Bombay High Court
Smt. Rajabai Rajreddy Akitwar And ... vs Union Of India Thr. General Manager ... on 2 August, 2017
cra76.16.J.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.76 OF 2016
1] Smt. Rajabai Rajreddy Akitwar
w/o Late Rajreddy Akitwar,
Aged 31 years.
2] Master Navin Rajanna Akitwar,
s/o Late Rajreddy Akitwar,
Aged 16 years.
3] Master Pravin Rajanna Akitwar
s/o Late Rajreddy Akitwar,
Aged 10 years.
Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are minor
through their natural mother
guardian Applicant No.1.
4] Smt. Chinubai Linganna Akitwar
w/o Late Linganna, Aged __ years,
All R/o 231, Village - Yetala,
Tahsil - Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded,
(Maharashtra). ....... APPLICANTS
APPELLANTS
...V E R S U S...
1] Union of India through
General Manager,
South Central Railway,
Secundarabad.
2] State of Maharashtra
through Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mumbai. ....... NON-APPLICANTS
RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:34:43 :::
cra76.16.J.odt 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Vilas M. Deshpande, Advocate for Applicants/Appellants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: DR. (SMT.) SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 21.06.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 02.08.2017 1] This revision application filed under Section 5(2) of
the Maharashtra Court Fees Act 1959 read with Rule 4(v) of Chapter V of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 challenges the order of Taxing Officer and Deputy Registrar of High Court Bench at Nagpur, passed on 05.08.2016 in First Appeal Stamp No.6175/2016, holding that the applicants have to pay deficit court fees of Rs.12,405/- on memo of appeal filed by them under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. 2] Facts, which may be relevant for the purpose of deciding this revision, can be stated as follows:
The applicants are the dependants of deceased Shri Rajanna Linganna Akitwar, who according to them, died in an "untoward incident" of falling from the train carrying passengers, while traveling from Basar to Dharmabad Railway ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:34:43 ::: cra76.16.J.odt 3 Station at KM No.427/700-800 on 23.04.2012. The applicants therefore, preferred an application under section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 for grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The said application was registered in Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur as O.A.(IIu)/RCT/NGP/2013/0127.
3] However, their claim application filed before the Tribunal came to be rejected, by the Railway Claims Tribunal, vide its judgment and order dated 08.12.2015. Being aggrieved by the said order the applicants have preferred this appeal under section 23 of the Act, affixing the fixed court fee stamp of Rs.25/- on the appeal memo.
4] According to the applicants in view of the proviso to Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), they were not required to pay the court fees on their claim filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal. Hence, in the appeal preferred under Section 23 of the said Act, against rejection of their claim petition also they are not liable to pay of court fees on the amount of compensation claimed in the petition. Moreover, as per the applicants, as the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal is not a "decree", they are not required to ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:34:44 ::: cra76.16.J.odt 4 pay the court fee at ad valorem rate as per Article 4 Schedule I of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959. However, the office of the High Court has taken objection regarding the payment of fixed court fee stamp of Rs.25/- and hence, the matter was placed before the Taxing Officer.
5] The Taxing Officer however, did not accept the submission of the learned counsel for applicants and held that when the appeal is preferred against the order passed in application under section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, it would be having the same meaning, as good as challenging the decree in a suit; therefore, the applicants will have to pay the court fee stamp as per Article 4 of Schedule I at the ad valorem rate as prescribed in Article 1 Schedule I for the valuation of appeals. While arriving at this finding the Taxing Officer placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Sumitradevi Mahipal Kureel vs. State of Maharashtra and others Mh.L.J. 2005(4) 133, though, the learned counsel for applicants had placed reliance on the judgment of another Single Bench of this Court in the case of Sisupalan K. Vallikalayil and another vs. Union of India 2016(4) Mh.L.J. 154 and the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Diwan Brothers vs. Central Bank of India, Bombay and ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:34:44 ::: cra76.16.J.odt 5 others AIR 1976 SC 1503. Hence, according to learned counsel for applicants, the impugned order passed by the Taxing Officer is not correct and calls for interference in this revision.
6] Thus, the only point, which is raised for my determination in this revision, is whether the applicants are liable to pay the deficit court fee stamp as directed by Taxing Officer? The finding to this point depends upon the legal issue as to whether in an appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 arising out of an application under section 16(1) read with section 13(1-A), the Court Fee is payable, as required under Article 13 under Schedule II of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act or under Article 3 of Schedule I of the said Act? 7] In order to answer this legal issue, it would be useful to refer to Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, which reads as follows:
16. Application to Claims Tribunal.--(1) A person seeking any relief in respect of the matters referred to in sub-section (1) of sub-section (1-A) of section 13 may make an application to the Claims Tribunal.
(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form and be accompanied by such documents or other evidence and by such fee in respect of the filing of such application and by such other fees for the service ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:34:44 ::: cra76.16.J.odt 6 or execution of process as may be prescribed:
Provided that no such fee shall be payable in respect of an application under sub-clause (ii) of clause
(a) of sub-section (1) of section 13 or as the case may be sub-section (1-A) of Section 13. (Emphasis supplied) 8] Thus, as per the Proviso to this section, no court fee is payable in respect of an application seeking amount of compensation for death of passenger in an 'untoward incident' while travelling in the train.
9] In this respect, section 13 (1-A) of the said Act which confers jurisdiction upon the Claims Tribunal to decide the application for compensation under Section 124-A of the said Act is also relevant and it reads as follows.
13. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal. -- (1) The Claims Tribunal.....
(a) .....
(i) .....
(ii) .....
(b) .....
(1A) The Claims Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date of commencement of the provisions of section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that date by any civil Court in respect of claims for compensation now payable by the railway administration under section 24-A of the said Act or the rules made thereunder. ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:34:44 ::: cra76.16.J.odt 7 10] In this case in view of the Proviso to section 16 of the said Act, the applicants were not required to pay court fee and they have not paid court fee on their application filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal. Admittedly, their application came to be dismissed. The right of appeal against the dismissal of such application is provided under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, which reads as follows:
23. Appeals.-- (1) Save as provided in sub-section (2) and notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), or in any other law, an appeal shall lie from every order, not being an interlocutory order, of the Claims Tribunal, to the High Court having jurisdiction over the place where the Bench is located.
(2) No appeal shall lie from an order passed by the Claims Tribunal with the consent of the parties.
(3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of the order appealed against.
11] Thus, Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act is silent as to the payment of court fee on the appeal preferred against the order passed by the Claims Tribunal. It merely provides the right of appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal, but does not state anything about the payment of court fees on such appeal memo, which is in contra-distinction to the Proviso of section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. The said ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:34:44 ::: cra76.16.J.odt 8 Proviso clearly lays down that no court fee shall be payable on the application for compensation filed under that section. However, as regards the appeal against the order passed by the Claims Tribunal on the application under section 16, there is no Proviso in the Railways Act, nor in Railway Claims Tribunal Act or the Rules framed thereunder, exempting the claimant or in a given case, even the respondent Railway administration from paying the court fee stamp. In such circumstances, the question for consideration is, whether by treating this appeal like any other appeal under Code of Civil Procedure or other enactment, the court fee stamp can be levied at ad valorem rate? 12] According to the learned counsel for applicants, considering the beneficial purpose and object of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, if on the application for compensation, no court fee stamp is leviable and the claimants are exempted from paying the court fee, then even in the appeal also, if the claim is rejected by the Railway Claims Tribunal, the claimant cannot be directed or is not expected in law to pay the court fee stamp. In support of his submission, learned counsel for applicants has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Diwan Brothers vs. Central Bank of India, Bombay and ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:34:44 ::: cra76.16.J.odt 9 others AIR 1976 SC 1503. In this case, the very question raised for consideration before the Apex Court was whether the court fee stamp at ad valorem rate is required to be paid, in the case of an appeal preferred by the claimant in the High Court against a decree passed by the Tribunal appointed under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951. Under the said Act also, the claimant was not required to pay the court fee stamp on the application filed before the Tribunal and hence, the argument advanced in the High Court was that the claimant should be exempted from paying court fee on the appeal memo also, having regard to the beneficial object of the Act.
13] While deciding this question, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken into consideration the aspect whether the proceedings before the Tribunal were proceedings in a Civil Court or otherwise and it was held that as the proceedings before the Tribunal were not proceedings in a Civil Court, nor was the "Tribunal" a Court therefore, the decision of the Tribunal, even though loosely called as a "decree" is not a decree, as contemplated by section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, it was held that the memorandum of appeal filed by a person aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal squarely falls ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:34:44 ::: cra76.16.J.odt 10 within the ambit of Schedule II Article 11 of the Court Fees Act and the court fee at ad valorem rate under Schedule I of Article 1 is not required to be paid.
14] While arriving at this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in para 5 of its judgment, taken into consideration the history of that particular legislation under the name of Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act. It was considered that the said Act was brought into effect to provide uniform legislation so as to be a complete code in itself and it was for providing a cheap and expeditious remedy for displaced debtors and creditors. In this context the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also taken into consideration the speech made by the then Minister of State for Rehabilitation while introducing the Bill in the Parliament. In the said speech the Minister had laid particular stress on the paying capacity of the debtors, which he called a humane consideration and also described the necessity of giving relief to the displaced persons against the huge amount of money which they may have to pay as court-fees. In the light of this speech of the then Minister, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that, "thus it would appear that the intention of Parliament was to bring out a legislation which will provide a cheap and expeditious remedy to ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:34:44 ::: cra76.16.J.odt 11 the displaced persons and entrusted the work to a Tribunal which may be able to decide the claims quickly instead of leaving the displaced debtors or creditors to follow the dilatory and cumbersome process of the civil courts. These matters will have a very important bearing on the interpretation of the provisions of the Court Fees Act as applicable to the decrees passed by a Tribunal under the Act".
15] In the light of the same, it was further held that, "the Act is a beneficial statute meant for advancement of the cause of the displaced debtors and creditors by conferring substantial benefits on them if they are able to prove their claims. In these circumstances, it is clear that the Legislature could never have intended that the claimants should have to pay heavy court fee either in getting their claims adjudicated by the Tribunal or even in filing appeal against the decree of the Tribunals". 16] In this context, the Apex Court also considered the well settled legal position that in case of a fiscal statute the provisions must be strictly interpreted giving every benefit of doubt to the subject and lightening as far as possible the burden of court fees on the litigant. Thus, it was held that, where an ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:34:44 ::: cra76.16.J.odt 12 adjudication given by a Tribunal could fall within the two provisions of the Court Fees Act, one of which was onerous for the litigant and the other more liberal, the court would apply that provision which was beneficial to the litigant. 17] Ultimately, therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was in this case pleased to hold that as the appeal preferred against the order of the Tribunal, which is though loosely called as decree, the decision of the Tribunal does not fulfill the requirements of a "decree" as defined under Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the memorandum of appeal squarely falls within the ambit of Schedule II Article 2 of the Court Fees Act. The order of the Taxing Officer therefore that ad valorem court fee was payable thereon under Schedule I Article 1 of the Court Fees Act was held to be legally erroneous and the court fee of Rs.5/- paid by the claimant on the memorandum of appeal was considered to be sufficient.
18] Learned counsel for the applicants has then relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Sisupalan vs. Union of India (supra). The very question which is raised in the present case, was for consideration, in this decision also. In the said case, ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:34:44 ::: cra76.16.J.odt 13 the appeal was filed by the claimants seeking further enhancement of compensation under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, as they were not satisfied with the amount of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- as granted by the Railway Claims Tribunal, as according to them the said amount was towards the no fault liability. It was contended by them that the fixed court fee stamp of Rs.25/-, as required under Article 13 under Schedule II of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 was sufficient on the appeal memo. The preliminary objection was raised thereto by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Betel Stores by Proprietor Krishna Bonde vs. State of Maharashtra 1991(1) Mh.L.J. 823, urging that the order passed under section 16(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal, is an "award" within the meaning of Article 3 under Schedule I of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, and the claimants have to pay Court fees on the amount or the value of the award sought to be set aside or modified, according to the scale prescribed under Article 1 under the said schedule, which is one-half of the amount prescribed in the scale. 19] In this decision of Sisupalan vs. Union of India the Singhe Bench of this Court has taken into consideration, the various provisions under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act and also ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:34:44 ::: cra76.16.J.odt 14 the Maharashtra Court Fees Act and then held that neither the Railways Act nor the Railway Claims Tribunal Act or the rules framed thereunder provide the payment of court fee in an appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. In view of this, no fault can be found with payment of court fee as provided in Article 13 under Schedule II of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act. 20] Thus, it was held that the appellant-claimants have to pay the court fee stamp as provided under Article 13 Schedule II of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959.
21] Perusal of the impugned order passed by the Taxing Officer reveals that he has held this judgment in Sisupalan vs. Union of India is not applicable as it is based upon different footing. However, he has placed reliance on another judgment of Single Judge of this Court in Sumitradevi Mahipal Kureel vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra). In this case also, the same issue was raised for consideration as it was an appeal filed under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, against the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, dismissing claim petition. The claimants therein had paid the fixed court fee stamp of Rs.25/- on the count that their appeal is covered under Schedule ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:34:44 ::: cra76.16.J.odt 15 II Article 13 of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act. The Taxing Officer of this Court has then taken objection on the count that ad valorem fee is required to be paid on the appeal, it being an appeal against the decree.
22] When the matter came before the Single Bench of this Court, two fold arguments were advanced. The first was, as no court fee is required to be paid on the claim application filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, no court fee is required to be paid in appeal also against the decision of the Railway Claims Tribunal. However, this argument was rejected on the count that as the claim made by the applicant in the appeal was capable of monetary valuation and it was as good as capable of being treated as a suit under Article 4 of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, the Court fee payable has to be changed at ad valorem rate on the amount claimed therein.
23] The second argument advanced in that case was that the amount of compensation, which Railway administration is bound to pay towards no fault liability to the claimant being "due" to the claimants, the claimants are required to be exempted from ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:34:44 ::: cra76.16.J.odt 16 payment of court fee in view of section 20(X)(XIII) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act. However, this argument was also not accepted on the count that as the application of the claimant was already rejected, while filing appeal it cannot be said that the amount was "due" to the claimants. Hence, reliance placed by applicants upon the provisions of section 20 (XIII) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act was considered to be misconceived and uncalled for.
24] Further argument of the learned counsel for the claimants therein that as the claimant was not required to pay court fee before the Railway Claims Tribunal under section 16 of the Act and therefore, he should not be liable to pay court fee at the time of filing of appeal was also rejected by holding that, "the test applied for calculation of proper court fee under Article 4 is not whether the applicant was required to pay any court fee while instituting the application/claim before Railway Claims Tribunal. The test is what court fee she will be required to pay if she presents the same as suit before the Civil Court". 25] Accordingly, it was held that the claimant cannot get exemption from payment of court fee in appeal against the order ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:34:44 ::: cra76.16.J.odt 17 of the Tribunal. The order of Taxing Officer therefore, directing the claimant to pay the court fee at ad valorem rate was considered to be just, proper and upheld. The revision was dismissed.
26] In the light of this legal position, now one has to consider whether the applicants can be exempted from payment of Court fee on the count that they were not required to pay court fee before Claims Tribunal when they filed application under section 16 of the Act or whether they are required to pay court fee as they are seeking monetary decree, which is in the nature of a suit, and therefore, it can be subject to payment of court fee stamp.
27] In my considered opinion, even the bare perusal of these two judgments delivered by two Coordinate Benches of this Court, one in Sumitradevi Mahipal Kureel and another in Sisupalan K. Vallikalayil and another, reveal that both the Coordinate Benches have taken the contrary views. In both the cases the point involved was the same, as to whether in an appeal referred under section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, the claimant is required to pay the Court fee at ad valorem rate or a ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:34:44 ::: cra76.16.J.odt 18 fixed court fee stamp under Article 13 Schedule II? In the first case of Sumitradevi, the claim petition before the Tribunal was dismissed, and hence the appeal was preferred by the claimants. In the second case of Sisupalan, the claim petition was allowed to the extent of the amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, which was considered by the claimant as towards no fault liability and further enhancement of compensation was sought by preferring appeal under section 23 of the Railways Act. Therefore, it is clear that both the appeals were preferred by the claimants under section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act.
28] Admittedly, in both the appeals the claimants were not required to pay court fee, when they had filed claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal under section 16 of the Act, in view of the exemption from payment of court fee, granted under the Proviso to the said section. The argument advanced in both the appeals was on the basis of this very Proviso to section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, as to whether the claimant is liable to pay court fee stamp on appeal memo, when he was not required to do so under section 16 of the Act at the time of filing claim petition. In the judgment of Sumitradevi it was held as under:
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:34:44 ::: cra76.16.J.odt 19
"The test applied for calculation of proper court fee under Article 4 is not whether applicant was required to pay any court fee while instituting application/claim before Railway Claims Tribunal. The test is what court fee she will be required to pay if she presents the same as suit before Civil Court".
29] As against it, in the case of Sisupalan, when same argument was advanced, it was held as follows:
"It is not in dispute that neither the Railways Act nor the Railway Claims Tribunal Act or the Rules framed thereunder provides the payment of court fee in an appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. In view of this, no fault can be found with payment of Court fee as provided in Article 13 under Schedule II of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959".
30] Thus, in both the decisions, two different conclusions are arrived at by Coordinate Benches of this Court. In the first case of Sumitradevi, it was held that claimant has to pay the court fee as per the ad valorem rate, whereas in the case of Sisupalan, it was held that the claimant need not pay the court fee ad valorem rate, but at fixed rate, as provided under Section 13 of Schedule II. 31] It may also be stated at this stage that the judgment in the case of Sumitradevi Mahipal Kureel which was first in point of time was not cited before the Coordinate Bench in the case of Sisupalan K. Vallikalayil. In both the cases however, the judgment ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:34:44 ::: cra76.16.J.odt 20 of this Court in the case of M/s. Betel Stores vs. State of Maharashtra 1991(1) Mh.L.J. 824 was cited. In the case of Sumitradevi this judgment of Betel Stores was followed holding that as the order of Tribunal under Section 16 (1) of the Act will be an "award" within the meaning of the term "award" in Article 3 of Schedule I, the court fee payable on the memorandum of the appeal under section 23 of the Act would be governed by the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule I of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, and hence the fee payable on memorandum of appeal is the fee on amount or value of the award sought to be set aside or modified according to the scale prescribed under Article 1 and the appellant was required to pay the court fee accordingly. 32] As against it, in the case of Sisupalan, it was held that, "the decision of this Court in Betel Stores case was certainly not a case filed under Section 13(1-A) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, read with section 124-A of the Railway Act. In the said decision the exemption from payment of court fee granted under the Proviso below sub-section (2) of section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act was not available. The decision in the said case was therefore, not applicable to the facts of the case and law laid down in the said case that the court fee payable in an appeal ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:34:44 ::: cra76.16.J.odt 21 under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act is governed by Article 3 of Schedule II of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act shall not govern the present case".
33] Thus, it is more than apparent that in the same matter and in respect of the same case law of Betel Stores relied upon by learned counsel for both the parties, in both these cases two Coordinate Benches have taken two different and conflicting views.
34] In my considered opinion, therefore in order to resolve these two conflicting views of two Coordinate Benches on the same issue, as to whether in an appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 arising out of the application under section 16(1) read with Section 13 (1-A) of the said Act the court fee payable is as required by Article 13 under Schedule II of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 or under Article 3 of Schedule I of the said Act? the matter needs to be placed before the Division Bench.
35] The Registry, is therefore, directed to take appropriate steps for placing this matter before the Division Bench ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:34:44 ::: cra76.16.J.odt 22 for consideration of this legal issue which is framed as follows:
[i] In view of the two conflicting views taken by two Coordinate Benches of this Court, one in the case of Sumitradevi Mahipal Kureel vs. State of Maharashtra and others Mh.L.J. 2005(4) 133 and another in the case of Sisupalan K. Vallikalayil and another vs. Union of India 2016(4) Mh.L.J. 154, whether in an appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 arising out of an application under section 16(1) read with section 13(1-A) of the said Act, the Court fee payable is, as required by Article 13 under Schedule II of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959, or under Article 3 of Schedule I of the said Act?
JUDGE NSN ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:34:44 :::