VASTULAL PAREEK Vs. PAREEK COMMERCIAL BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question which has been raised for our decision in this appeal at this stage is whether the court-fee of Rs. 2/- paid by the appellant Vastulal on the memorandum of appeal is proper, or, as contended by the office, an ad valorem court-fee on the claim decreed should have been paid.

(2.) A few facts may be stated in order to bring out the point in controversy. The respondent Pareek Commercial Bank Limited was a public banking company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, as applied to the State of bikaner as it then was. The appellant Vastulal was the Chairman of the Company till it was wound up by an order of the learned Company Judge dated the 31st July, 1952, in company petition No. 2 of 1952. A claim for a sum of Rs. 22,000/including principal and interest was instituted by the Pareek Commercial Bank limited through the Official Liquidator against Vastulal under Section 456 of the banking Companies Act, 1949 (Act No. X of 1949, hereinafter called the Act) on the 25th August, 1960. This claim was decreed by the learned Company Judge for sum of Rs. 15,000/- principal and Rs. 7,000/- interest with pendente lite and future interest at six per cent per annum simple by his order dated the 16th July, 1963. The present appeal has been filed against that order on a court-fee stamp of Rs. 2/- as already stated. The objection raised by the office is that ad valorem court-fee should have been paid on the claim allowed and this objection is supported both by the learned counsel for the Company as well as by the learned government Advocate on behalf of the State. In support of this submission reliance is placed on Rule 743 in Chapter XXIX of the Rules of this Court. This rule reads as follows :-

(3.) WE may state at once, however, that in so far as the objection is sought to be supported on the footing of this rule it becomes untenable because this set of rules was replaced by another set which was brought into effect by virtue of a notification of this Court No. 7/sro dated the 24th August, 1959, published in the rajasthan Rajpatra dated the 26th November, 1959, by which it was ordered that with effect from the date of publication in the Rajasthan Gazette, the rules mentioned under the Notification shall be adopted and that the said rules be included as Chapter XXIX of Part VII of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952, and be substituted in place of the Rules 729 to 745 as then included in the said Chapter. It is admitted that Rule 743 has been entirely omitted in the new rules, and there is no counter-part thereof in them. That being so, the question must fall to be governed by the provisions of the Rajasthan Court fees Act (Adaptation) Ordinance, 1950 (Ordinance No. IX of 1950, hereinafter called the Court Fees Act) read with the provisions of the Act with which we are concerned in so far as they have a bearing on the point raised before us.