Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
CHANDER BHAN GOSAIN
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
05/04/1963
BENCH:
SARKAR, A.K.
BENCH:
SARKAR, A.K.
DAS, S.K.
HIDAYATULLAH, M.
CITATION:
1967 AIR 767 1964 SCR (2) 879
ACT:
Supreme Court Practice-Appeal-Court Fee-One petition filed
under Art. 226 to challange many assessment orders--Appeal
against one order of High Court-Court fee payable.
HEADNOTE:
This appeal was against the order of the Deputy Registrar
directing the present case to be registered as nine appeals
and requiring the appellant to pay nine sets of court fees.
The case originated out of one petition under Art. 226 of
the Constition challenging the validity of various
assessment orders. The High Court passed one order on the
petition and one appeal was filed in this Court.
886
Held that the appellant should pay only one set of court fee
and other charges as in a single appeal. It could not be
said that there were as many proceedings as there were
assessment orders as the appellant had by a single petition
challenged them all together.
Lajwanti Sial’s case, Petition for special leave No. 673 of
1959 and Kishinchand Chellaram’s case, C.A. Nos. 462 to 465
of 1960, referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE, JURISDICTION: Civil Misc. Petition No. 1398
of 1962.
Appeal against the order of the Deputy Registrar dated March
28, 1962 in Civil Appeals Nos. 41 to 49 of 1962.
A.Ranganadham Chetty, B.D. Dhawan, S.K. Mehta and K.L.
Mehta, for the petitioner.
C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-Generalfor India, R. Ganapathy
Iyer and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondents.
1963. April 5. The Order of the court was delivered by
SARKAR J. -This is an appeal against the order of the Deputy
Registrar directing the present case to be registered as
nine appeals and requiring the appellant to pay nine sets of
court-fees. The Deputy Registrar had relied on two cases of
this Court, namely, Lajwanti Sial’s case (Petition for
Special Leave No. 673 of 1959) and Kishinchand Chellaram’s
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
case (Civil Appeals No. 462 to 465 of 1960). We do not
think that these precedents cover the present case.
In Lajwanti’s Case there were a number of applications under
s. 66 (2) of the Income-tax Act for reference of the same
question. There were in tact a number of separate
references but they were
887
dealt with by one judgment from which the appeal to this
Court arose. That was really a case of five appeals for the
common judgment must be taken to have been delivered in each
of the different reference cases.
Kishinchand Chellaram’8 case is also not helpful because
there four applications by four different assessees had been
made for reference of three identical questions arising in
each assessment case under s. 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act.
Though it appears that there was one order of reference to
the High Court and the High Court treated the case as a
single case of reference, it could be said that there were
in fact a number of references.
The present case however originated out of one petition
under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity
of various assessment orders. Obviously here, there was
only one proceeding. It could not be said that there were
as many proceedings as there were assessment orders for the
petitioner had by a single petition callenged them all
together. When an appeal is taken to this Court from the
judgment of the High Court in such a petition, it is
impossible to contend that there are more appeals than one.
Therefore, the appellant before us is liable only to pay one
set of court-fee and other charges as in a single appeal.
Action may be taken accordingly by the office, if necessary,
by refunding the excess charges made.
888