Law Commission Report No. 236- Court-fees in Supreme Court Vis-A-Vis Corporate Litigation

8/19/2019 Law Commission Report No. 236- Court-fees in Supreme Court Vis-A-Vis Corporate Litigation

1/37

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

LAWCOMMISSION

OFINDIA

Court-fees in Supreme Court vis-à-vis Corporate Litigation

Report No !"#

De$em%er& !'('

(

LatestLaws.com


2/37

LatestLaws.com

Court-fees in Supreme Court vis-à-vis Corporate Litigation

TA)LE OF CONTENTS

*age

No

I REFERENCE (-"

II EARLIER RE*ORTS +-#

III E,AMINATION OF ISSE FROM T.E /-("CONSTITTIONAL ANGLE 0ARTICLE (+1

IV CERTAIN DETAILS RELATING TO (+-(/COR*ORATE LITIGATION

V *OSITION IN FOREIGN CONTRIES (2

VI EASIER ACCESS TO CORTS AND (3-!+CORT-FEE

VII SMMAR4 AND RECOMMENDATIONS !5-!3

A**ENDI, "'-"(

!

LatestLaws.com


3/37

LatestLaws.com

Justice P. V. Reddi Ne6 De78i0Former 9u:ge& Supreme Court of In:ia1 Te7e; !"'( 3+#5 0R1C8airman !""2 ++/5 0O1La6 Commission of In:ia Fa&

Sub: Court-fees in Supreme Court vis-à-vis Corporate Litigation.

I am for6ar:ing 8ere6it8 t8e !"#

t8

Report of t8e La6Commission of In:ia on t8e a%o?e su%@e$t

*ursuant to t8e o%ser?ations ma:e %> t8e Department -Re7ate: *ar7iamentar> Stan:ing Committee on *ersonne7& *u%7i$Grie?an$es& La6 an: 9usti$e in its !2t8 Report on t8e Supreme Court0Num%er of 9u:ges1 Amen:ment )i77& !''2& t8e Department of 9usti$e reueste: t8e La6 Commission of In:ia to $onsi:er 7e?>ing8ig8er $ourt-fees on t8e $orporate se$tor It 6as fe7t t8at in spite of

8ig8 staBes in?o7?e: an: t8e 7ong time taBen %> t8e $ourt in:isposing of $ases fi7e: %> t8e $ompanies& ?er> 7itt7e $ourt-fee isrea7ie: from t8em T8erefore& t8e *ar7iamentar> Stan:ingCommittee suggeste: amen:ment of Supreme Court Ru7es frame:un:er Arti$7e (+5& for 7e?>ing ad valorem $ourt- fees on $orporate7itigants

Offi$e; I L I )ui7:ing& )8ag6an:as Roa:& Ne6 De78i ((' ''(Resi:en$e; (& 9anpat8& Ne6 De78i ((' '((

E-mai7; p?re::i>a8oo$oin

"

LatestLaws.com


4/37

LatestLaws.com

As t8e o%ser?ations of t8e *ar7iamentar> Stan:ing Committee 6ere

spe$ia77> 6it8 referen$e to t8e $orporate 7itigation in t8e Supreme Court& 6e

8a?e e t8at issue in :etai7 It ma> %e mentione: t8at t8e

*ar7iament is $ompetent to 7e?> $ourt-fee on7> in respe$t of 7itigation in t8e

Supreme Court an: nion TerritoriesT8e Commission 8as taBen t8e ?ie6 t8at it 6ou7: not %e 7ega77>

permissi%7e nor pra$ti$a%7e to 7e?> 8ig8er $ourt-fee on7> on t8e$ompanies = $orporates T8e so7ution offere: %> t8e Commission isto in$rease ad valorem $ourt-fee pa>a%7e in respe$t of t8e appea7s0Ci?i71 to t8e Supreme Court su%@e$t to a ma& t8e ma t8e Companies& Firms& Trusts an: AO*s un:er spe$ia7 A$ts et$6ou7: attra$t 8ig8er fee T8e Commission 8as a7so suggeste:up6ar: re?ision of minimum fee of Rs !5'=- as 6e77 as t8e fi fi pai: on ad valorem %asis %ot8 at t8e tria7an: appe77ate stage Fina77>& t8e Commission 8as suggeste: t8atinstea: of *ar7iament ena$ting an> 7egis7ation straig8t6a>superse:ing t8e ru7es frame: %> t8e Supreme Court& it 6ou7: %e

proper to a::ress t8e Supreme Court for re?ision of $ourt-fees as it8as remaine: stati$ for near7> #' >ears %> no6 T8e Supreme Courtma> t8en $onstitute a Committee an: go into t8e uestion of

re?isionIt 8as %een ma:e $7ear in t8e Report t8at t8e Court-fee s8ou7: not %e ?ie6e: as $8ief sour$e of re?enue to run t8e $ourts an: furt8er in t8e $ase of ad valorem $ourt-fee& t8e

prin$ip7e of pres$ri%ing a $ei7ing 7imit s8ou7: %e a:8ere: to T8e Commission 8asa7so emp8asie: t8at t8e agen:a of e


5/37

LatestLaws.com

a$$ess to t8e Court 8as to %e a$$omp7is8e: 6it8out 7inBing it up6it8 t8e uantum of $ourt fee T8e 7ega7 ai: me$8anisms in for$ein t8e Supreme Court an: ot8er $ourts 8a?e %een referre: to

T6o ear7ier reports of La6 Commission& name7>& (23t8 report

an: !!'t8 report& 8a?e %een referre: to at t8e appropriate p7a$es

In regar: to nion Territories& a %rief supp7ementa7 report 6i77

%e sent after t8e reuisite information is re$ei?e: from .ig8

$ourts

Wit8 regar:s&

4ours sin$ere7>

0 * V REDDI 1

Dr M Veerappa Moi7>&

nion Minister for La6 H 9usti$e&

Go?ernment of In:ia&

S8astri )8a?an&

Ne6 De78i ((' ''(

5

LatestLaws.com


6/37

LatestLaws.com

I REFERENCE

1.1.1 Based on the comments made by the Department-Related

Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Pblic

!rie"ances, #a$ and %stice in its &'th Report1 $hile considering

the Spreme Cort (Nmber o) %dges* +mendment Bill, &',

the Department o) %stice reested the #a$ Commission o)

ndia& to consider the isse o) treating the Corporates separately

in the matter o) payment o) cort-)ee so that higher cort-)ee

may be demanded )rom the corporate sector on ad "alorem

basis.

1.1.& /he Parliamentary Standing Committee $as in )a"or o)

le"y o) di))erential cort-)ee )or the corporate sector and

accordingly, recommended0 that amendments be carried ot in

the rele"ant rles in terms o) +rticle 12 o) the Constittion.

+rticle 12 pro"ides that sb3ect to the pro"isions o) any

la$ made by Parliament, the Spreme Cort may )rom time

to time, $ith the appro"al o) the President, ma4e rles

)or reglating

( !2t8 Report of t8e Department-Re7ate: *ar7iamentar> Stan:ing Committee on *ersonne7& *u%7i$ Grie?an$es&La6 an: 9usti$e on t8e Supreme Court 0Num%er of 9u:ges1 Amen:ment )i77& !''2 presente: to t8e .on%7eC8airman& Ra@>a Sa%8a on +t8 August& !''2! Department of 9usti$es Letter No L-(('(2=(=!''!-9us :ate: (//!''3 T8e sai: 7etter ina:?ertent7> refersto !(st Report of t8e *ar7iamentar> Stan:ing Committee on t8e J9u:ges 0Inuir>1 )i77& !''#" *aragrap8s /+ an: /5 of t8e !2 t8 Report of t8e *ar7iamentar> Stan:ing Committee

#

LatestLaws.com


7/37

LatestLaws.com

generally the practice and procedre o) the Cort, inclding

"arios matters speci)ied in sb-clases (a* to (3*. /he

Committee obser"ed that the corporate and stattory bodies

ha"e to pay only ma5imm cort-)ee o) Rs.&,6- )or going to

Spreme Cort, and sch entities ma4e se o) the 3dicial

in)rastrctre at the minimm e5pense and considerable time is

spent by the Spreme Cort on the litigation by sch corporate

bodies. /he Committee )rther obser"ed that the

corporate6commercial bodies ha"e hge )inancial resorces at

their disposal and in"ariably their disptes are $orth crores o)

rpees and, there)ore, it $old be reasonable i) they are

reired to pay cort-)ees on ad "alorem basis ranging

bet$een 17 and 27 o) the total "ale o) the dispte. /he

Standing Committee )rther made speci)ic re)erence to some o)

the )iscal and other enactments "i8. Cstoms +ct, Central E5cise

+ct, ncome-ta5 +ct, Consmer Protection +ct, 9R/P +ct,

/elecom Reglatory +thority o) ndia +ct, SEB +ct, nder

$hich the companies can )ile appeals to the Spreme Cort by

paying the ma5imm )ee o) Rs.&,6- $hich is grossly

inadeate. /he Committee pointed ot that the additional

re"ene generated by charging higher )ee on corporate bodies

cold be sed by the State )or )l)illing the directi"es laid do$n

in +rticle 0:+ o) the constittion. /he Committee )elt that by

increasing the cort-)ees on ad "alorem basis, the Spreme

Cort can add to its re"ene mani)old and the resltant re"ene

/

LatestLaws.com


8/37


9/37

LatestLaws.com

- E+R#ER REP=R/S

&.1 +t the otset, it may be stated that the #a$ Commissiono) ndia in its 1':th Report (&* recommended that ha"ing

regard to the de"alation o) rpee and increase in in)lation, the

rates o) )i5ed cort-)ees as prescribed in Schedle & o) the

Cort-)ees +ct 1'> need to be appropriately re"ised. t $as

also obser"ed that ad "alorem cort-)ees need not be re"ised in

as mch as the )ee $ill be paid in proportion to the "ale o) theclaim $hich in any e"ent $old re)lect the enhanced "ale o)

the claim a)ter in)lation. /hat means, those cases in"ol"ing

high sta4es $ill attract higher cort-)ees as a conseence o) ad

"alorem cort-)ee. /he recommendation $as that in so )ar as

the ?nion territories not co"ered by their respecti"e +cts are

concerned, it $ill be s))icient i) the rates o) cort-)ee asprescribed in the Cort-)ees +ct 1'> be enhanced 4eeping in

mind the de"alation o) rpee o"er the years. /he present

Commission $hile reiterating the said "ie$s sggests that the

ma5imm cort-)ee $here"er prescribed shold also be

reasonably increased in "ie$ o) long passage o) time and the

change o) circmstances.

+ La6 Commission of In:ia& (23 t8 Report on KRe?ision of Court Fees Stru$ture 0!''+1& pages 3#& ((!-(("

3

LatestLaws.com


10/37

LatestLaws.com

&.& /he #a$ Commission in its &&th Report (&:*2 stressed

on the need to )i5 the ma5imm )or the cort-)ees chargeable.

n this conte5t, it may be mentioned that in Delhi and in

Chandigarh, there is no ma5imm prescribed.

&.0 Be)ore proceeding to address the crcial isse, $e may

brie)ly recapitlate the position relating to the legislati"e po$ers

o) the Parliament and the State #egislatres "is-@-"is cort-)ees.

/he 1':th Report has elaborately discssed this aspect and $e

$old li4e to ote the e5cerpts there)romA

From the abo"e entries, it is e"ident that the sb3ect o)

Cort-)ees, so )ar it relates to Spreme Cort, )alls nder

Entry >> o) #ist (?nion #ist*. Cort-)ees in igh Corts

and other Sbordinate Corts, )alls nder Entry 0 o) #ist

(State #ist*.

Entry :< o) #ist , Entry o) #ist

also deal $ith )ees, bt )ees ta4en in any Cort is

speci)ically e5clded in these speci)ic entries.

(a* #a$ on Cort-)ees payable in the igh Cort and

sbordinate CortsA t is necessary to mention here that

the entry relating to the administration o) 3stice, $as

5 La6 Commission of In:ia& !!' t8 Report on KNee: to fi< Ma


11/37

LatestLaws.com

originally in Entry 0 o) #ist . Bt by "irte o) the

Constittion (Forty-Second* +mendment +ct, 1:>>. /hogh administration o) 3stice no$ )alls

nder Entry 11+ o) #ist , the sb3ect o) )ees ta4en in

any cort, $hich may be said to be related to

administration o) 3stice, does not )all nder #ist in

"ie$ o) the e5plicit bar nder Entry > o) #ist

mentioned abo"e. /he e))ect o) this Constittional

amendment still remains the same i.e. the po$er to

legislate on matters o) cort-)ees remains in the

competence o) the State #egislatres, so )ar as the igh

Corts and Corts sbordinate thereto are concerned.

/hs, as )ar as Parliament is concerned, nder +rt.&<

(1* read $ith Entry >> o) #ist , it can enact a la$ relating

to Cort-)ees $hich is payable in Spreme Cort, and

nder +rt.&


12/37

LatestLaws.com

- EG+9N+/=N =F SS?E FR=9 /E C=NS//?/=N+#

+N!#E (+R/C#E 1*

0.1 No$, $e shall address the estion $hether it is

constittionally permissible to prescribe a di))erent and higher

cort-)ee )or the corporations. /he )ndamental right to

eality garanteed by +rticle 1 o) the Constittion does not

rle ot reasonable classi)ication. /here need not be and

oght not to be ni)orm rates o) ta5ation (or )ee* applicable toall classes o) persons and to all the ob3ects o) ta5ation. n )act,

it is a $ell - settled principle reiterated in a series o) decisions o)

the Spreme Cort o) ndia as $ell as the Constittional Corts

o) other contries that in matters o) ta5ation, the #egislatre

en3oys greater )reedom o) classi)ication and its range o) choice

is mch $ider. He may in this conte5t re)er to the decision o) the Spreme Cort in P.9. +sh$athanarayana Setty and =rs.

Is. State o) Jarnata4a and =rs. (+R 1:': SC 1* in $hich the

constittional "alidity o) the cort-)ees enactments o) three

States came p )or consideration. /he Spreme Cort obser"ed

thsA

K./hogh other legislati"e measres dealing $ith

economic reglation are not otside +rt. 1, it is $ell

recogni8ed that the State en3oys the $idest latitde $here

measres o) economic reglation are concerned. /hese

(!

LatestLaws.com


13/37

LatestLaws.com

measres )or )iscal and economic reglation in"ol"e an

e"alation o) di"erse and ite o)ten con)licting economic

criteria and ad3stment and balancing o) "arios

con)licting social and economic "ales and interests. t is

)or the State to decide $hat economic and social policy it

shold prse and $hat discriminations ad"ance those

special and economic policies. n "ie$ o) the inherent

comple5ity o) these )iscal ad3stments, Corts gi"e a

larger discretion to the #egislatre in the matter o) its

pre)erences o) economic and social policies and

e))ectate the chosen system in all possible and

reasonable $ays. ) t$o or more methods o)

ad3stments o) an economic measre are a"ailable, the

#egislati"e pre)erence in )a"or o) one o) them cannot be

estioned on the grond o) lac4 o) legislati"e $isdom or

that the method adopted is not the best or that there

$ere better $ays o) ad3sting the competing interests and

claims. /he legislatre possesses the greatest )reedom in

sch areas. /he analogy o) principles o) the brden o) ta5

may not also be inapposite in dealing $ith the "alidity o)

the distribtion o) the brden o) a )ee as $ell. (para

0*

+)ter oting the principles laid do$n in earlier cases, it

$as obser"edA

("

LatestLaws.com


14/37

LatestLaws.com

K./he comple5ity o) economic matters and the pragmatic

soltions to be )ond )or them de)y and go beyond

conceptal mental models. Social and economic problems

o) a policy do not accord $ith preconcei"ed stereotypes so

as to be amenable to pre-determined soltions. (para

01*

/hen, at para 0&, it $as pointed ot that the estion

$hether the measre o) a ta5 or a )ee shold be ad "alorem or

ad antm is again a matter o) )iscal policy.

0.& n the case o) ncome-ta5 =))icer, Shillong "s. N.

/a4in Roy Rymbai (+R 1:>< SC * it $as obser"edA

K.Nor the mere )act that a ta5 )alls more hea"ily on some

in the same category, is by itsel) a grond to render the

la$ in"alid. t is only $hen $ithin the range o) its

selection, the la$ operates neally and cannot be

3sti)ied on the basis o) a "alid classi)ication, that there

$old be a "iolation o) +rticle 1. (para &*

0.0 n +sh$athanarayana Settys case, the Spreme Cort

pheld the constittional "alidity o) the Ra3asthan and Jarnata4a

(+

LatestLaws.com


15/37

LatestLaws.com

Cort-)ees and Sits Ialation +cts. o$e"er, a particlar

pro"ision in Bombay Cort-)ees +ct $as strc4 do$n as

nconstittional. /he reason $as that the Cort-)ees on

proceedings )or grant o) probate and letters o) administration

ad "alorem $ithot the pper limit prescribed as in the case o)

other proceedings $as discriminatory. /he Spreme Cort

agreed $ith the "ie$ o) the igh cort that there $as no

intelligible or rational di))erentia bet$een the t$o classes o)

litigations ha"ing rational ne5s to the ob3ecti"e. /he Spreme

Cort noticed that the party $ho $as plainti)) in a probate

proceeding $as called pon to pay a cort-)ees o) Rs.


16/37

LatestLaws.com

0. /he Spreme Cort also made an obser"ation that the

prescription o) high rates o) cort-)ees e"en in small claims as

also $ithot an pper limit in larger claims is perilosly close to

arbitrariness, an nconstittionality.

0.2 Classi)ication )or the prpose o) ta5ation based on the

)inancial capacity has been held to be permissible classi)ication

by the Spreme Cort in certain other cases arising nder the

Sales /a5 and other ta5 la$s.

0.< /he Commission is, there)ore, o) the "ie$ that the

prescription o) higher cort-)ees )or corporate sector or any

other category o) litigants $ill not per se o))end any

constittional principle, pro"ided that there is reasonable

3sti)ication to treat them on a di))erent )ooting. /here mst be

intelligible di))erentia to spport the classi)ication. /he

Commission is clari)ying this point becase in an earlier report

(&&th Report*,


17/37

LatestLaws.com

)ees lea"ing ot a))lent indi"idals and associations o)

indi"idals. ) capacity to pay more is the criterion, $hy shold

there be a distinction bet$een the corporations and eally i)

not more prosperos other litigantsL n )act, this is one o) the

considerations $hich $eighed $ith the #a$ 9inisters as )ar bac4

as 1:'. /he isse o) rationali8ation o) cort-)ee $as e5amined

by the Committee o) #a$ 9inisters in =ct. 1:' and the

sggestion o) di))erential cort-)ees )or corporate sector $as

trned do$n by the Committee $ith the )ollo$ing noteA

/he +d"ocates !eneral o) Jerala and Hest Bengal $ere

o) the "ie$ that there $as no 3sti)ication )or e5tending

concessions proposed in the matter o) cort-)ees to the

companies. /hey )rther said that di))erential rates o)

cort-)ees cold be prescribed )or payment by indi"idals

and corporate bodies6companies. /hey )elt that there

might not be any constittional bar in doing so.( para

'.12*

Hhether the sit is )iled by an indi"idal or a company,

the ser"ice rendered by the cort is the same. t may be

arged that companies6corporate bodies are in a position

to pay. Bt so may be the case $ith se"eral indi"idals.

o$ cold then a di))erential rate o) cort-)ee be

3sti)iedL +lso, among companies, there may be strong

(/

LatestLaws.com


18/37

LatestLaws.com

and $ea4 ones. /here may be di))erences in si8e,

)inancial "iability, etc. +gain, i) a di))erential rate is

accepted, !o"ernment nderta4ings $ill also be co"ered.

(para '.1


19/37

LatestLaws.com

I - CER/+N DE/+#S RE#+/N! /= C=RP=R+/E #/!+/=N

.1 Be)ore proceeding to discss the alternati"e optiona"ailable, the Commission $old li4e to place on record certain

data6statistics relating to the Cort-)ee re"ene and the

corporate cases )iled in the Spreme Cort. /he o"erall re"ene

)rom the cort-)ees )or the years &>-', &'-: and &:-

1 is Rs. 11: la4hs, 1&' la4hs and 100 la4hs, respecti"ely. /he

total bdgetary allocation to the Spreme Cort dring thepreceding year (&:* $as abo"e Rs. 1 crores. /he

Commission, a)ter ma4ing some e))orts, cold obtain the details

o) cases )iled in t$o months, i.e., %anary and Febrary &1

in order to identi)y distinctly the ci"il appeals (inclding those

relating to ta5ation and other special +cts* institted by the

companies6corporations. /he appeals attract the ma5imm )eeo) Rs.&,6-

.& /he Special #ea"e Petitions (S#Ps-Ci"il* registered in the

month o) %anary &1 $ere &2> and those in Febrary $ere

&1'>. =t o) them, 1&0 S#Ps-Ci"il in %anary and 1'2 in

Febrary relate to pri"ate sector companies. Dring the sameperiod, as many as : and &02 S#Ps (Ci"il* $ere those )iled by

pblic sector companies6nderta4ings. /hs, as )ar as

Companies other than PS?s are concerned, the a"erage nmber

o) S#Ps (Ci"il* )iled in a month $or4s ot to abot 12 cases.

(3

LatestLaws.com


20/37

LatestLaws.com

9ost o) the cases )iled by the companies inclding PS?s are

ta5ation matters and appeals nder special enactments relating

to /elecom Disptes, Electricity Reglation, Consmer Disptes

etc. For the S#Ps, a nominal )i5ed )ee is charged as in the case

o) Hrit petitions in the igh Corts. Hhen the S#Ps are

admitted a)ter hearing, those S#Ps $ill be con"erted into ci"il

appeals and )or ci"il appeals, the ma5imm )ee presently

chargeable is Rs.&,6. +bot 27 or more S#Ps are

generally re3ected at admission stage. /hs, assming abot >

or ' cases o) pri"ate sector companies are nmbered as ci"il

appeals, the cort-)ees re"ene presently being )etched )rom

the companies $hose appeals are so entertained is to the tne

o) abot 1.


21/37

LatestLaws.com

the igh Cort arising ot o) /+/s orders (nder the

ncome-ta5 +ct* and other ta5ation stattes, the )ee

charged by the igh Corts inclding the Delhi igh Cort is

nominal. +t the stage o) appeal to the /ribnal also, the )ee

paid is ite small, as noted earlier. n no State or ?nion

territory, the ad "alorem cort-)ee is charged in respect o)

appeals6re)erences arising nder ta5ation and other )iscal

enactments. Normally, the appeals arising nder the said

enactments in"ol"e hea"y sta4es and they are mostly )iled

by companies, trsts, )irms and societies. /he other

category o) appeals $hich in"ol"e hea"y sta4es )iled by

companies and )irms are those nder the +rbitration and

Conciliation +ct, 1::


22/37

LatestLaws.com

dispense $ith that principle in respect o) any category o) ci"il

appeals )iled by the companies or others.

..& nterestingly, the case o) Central Coal Fields #td. Is.

%ais$al Coal Co. (+R 1:' SC &1&2* illstrates ho$ the high

antm o) cort-)ee $ithot ma5imm limit cased problems

to a PS? to )ile an appeal. /he Spreme Cort obser"ed, i) the

Central !o"ernment or its agent disco"ered that the cort-)ee

$as disastrosly bac4-brea4ing, one shold ha"e e5pected it, as

the promoter o) ine5pensi"e 3stice )or the people, to nderta4e

ni)orm legislation redcing the scale o) cort-)ees consistently

$ith economic 3stice and ci"ili8ed processal 3risprdence...

(para 0*

.2 /he Commission $old li4e to restate the $ell-settled

principle that cort-)ee shold not be "ie$ed as the chie) sorce

o) re"ene to rn the corts. t is trite that the cost o)

administration o) 3stice, being a so"ereign )nction essential to

the democratic system o) go"ernance cannot be e"alated in

terms o) the cort-)ees generated. Secondly, cort-)ee oght

not to be "ie$ed as a means to chec4 "e5atios litigation.

E"en i) a part o) the litigation is "e5atios, an abnormal increase

in the antm o) cort-)ee $old case hardship to genine

litigants. n this conte5t, the Commission $old li4e to

mention that it is nderta4ing a separate stdy on the sb3ect o)

!!

LatestLaws.com


23/37

LatestLaws.com

costs and appropriate amendments to Code o) Ci"il Procedre

so that the cort $ill be in a position to impose hea"y costs on

)ri"olos and "e5atios litigation.

I. P=S/=N N F=RE!N C=?N/RES

2 /he Commission has noticed that no separate cort )ee

has been prescribed )or the corporates in most o) the )oreign

contries inclding S++RC contries, ?nited Jingdom, Canada,

etc. o$e"er, in +stralia: and Ne$ Soth Hales, corporates

are liable to pay doble the amont o) cort-)ee payable by

other sitors in respect o) certain matters.

3 Fe:era7 Magistrates Regu7ations !'''& Statutor> Ru7es !''' No ('! as amen:e: &prepare: %> t8e Offi$e of Legis7ati?e Drafting an: *u%7is8ing& Attorne>-Genera7s Department& Can%erra 0S$8e:u7e (1

!"

LatestLaws.com


24/37

LatestLaws.com

I. E+SER +CCESS /= C=?R/S +ND C=?R/-FEE


25/37

LatestLaws.com

indigent person to )ile a sit $ithot payment o) cort-)ee or

any )ee )or ser"ice or process. +n indigent person is de)ined as

one $ho is not possessed o) s))icient means (other than

property e5empt )rom attachment* to pay the prescribed cort-

)ee. Eniry into the means o) an indigent person has been

simpli)ied by con)erring that po$er in the )irst instance on the

chie) ministerial o))icer o) the cort. Frther, the cort can

assign a pleader to an nrepresented indigent person in

accordance $ith the rles made by the igh Cort in this

regard. n regard to appeals, a similar pro"ision is there in

=rder G#I o) the Code o) Ci"il Procedre, 1:' enabling an

indigent person to )ile the appeal $ithot payment o) cort-

)ee. Hhere a party $as allo$ed to se or appeal as an

indigent person in the cort )rom $hose decree the appeal is

pre)erred, no )rther eniry in respect o) the estion $hether

or not he is an indigent person shall be necessary, i) the party

)iles an a))ida"it stating that he has not ceased to be an indigent

person since the date o) the decree.


26/37

LatestLaws.com

/he Spreme Cort #egal Ser"ices Committee headed by

another senior %dge consists o) ten members inclding the

+ttorney !eneral, the o))icials o) the concerned 9inistries 6

Departments o) !o"ernment o) ndia and +d"ocates practising

in the Spreme Cort. /he )nctions o) the central athority

(N+#S+* are speci)ied in section o) the said +ct. /he +ct also

pro"ides )or the constittion o) State #egal Ser"ices +thority,

igh Cort #egal Ser"ices Committee, District #egal Ser"ices

+thority and /al4 #egal Ser"ices Committees. Each athority

is reired to establish #egal +id Fnd. /he ma3or component

o) sch )nds are the grants gi"en by the N+#S+ and State

!o"ernments. Frther, considerable amonts are recei"ed by

these bodies by reason o) the orders o) the corts directing

remittance o) costs to the credit o) #egal Ser"ice +thority.

/he #egal Ser"ice +thorities in a ma3ority o) States ha"e

s))icient )nds at their disposal, bt, in)rastrctre is lac4ing in

many States. Hith the allocation o) sbstantial amonts to

#egal Ser"ice +thorities prsant to the recommendations o)

/hirteenth Finance Commission, the in)rastrctral )acilities are

bond to impro"e.


27/37

LatestLaws.com

(a* a member o) a Schedled Caste or Schedled

/ribe (b* a "ictim o) tra))ic4ing in hman beings (c* a

$oman or a child (d* a person $ith a disability (e* a

person nder circmstances o) ndeser"ed $ant sch as

being a "ictim o) a mass disaster, "iolence, natral

calamities etc ()* an indstrial $or4man (g* a person in

cstody, inclding cstody in a protecti"e home or a

3"enile home or psychiatric hospital and (h* in receipt o)

annal income less than rpees 2,6-.


28/37

LatestLaws.com

+dalats also in order to ensre speedy 3stice. /he N+#S+ has

recently )ramed a Scheme )or Free and Competent #egal

Ser"ices, &1. /he procedre )or approaching the Spreme

Cort #egal Ser"ices Committee by the persons entitled to legal

aid is by and large hassle-)ree. #o4 +dalats are held reglarly

nder the aspices o) #egal Ser"ice +thorities and Committees

at "arios le"els.


29/37

LatestLaws.com

)iling o) cases has been introdced $hich $old ob"iate the

need o) personal presence o) the appellant6petitioner at the

time o) )iling the cases. 9oreo"er, the Spreme Cort can

e5ercise its po$er nder =rder G#I Rle < o) the Spreme

Cort Rles, 1:


30/37

LatestLaws.com

I. S?99+RO +ND REC=99END+/=NS

>.1 n the light o) the legal and )actal position discssedabo"e, the Commission is inclined to ta4e the "ie$ that

companies6corporations alone cannot be )astened $ith the

liability to pay higher cort-)ee, lea"ing apart similarly sitated

category o) litigants $ho do bsiness. +t the same time, there

can be classi)ication based on the )inancial capacity to bear the

brden o) cort-)ee. /he )inancial capacity is broadly dedcible)rom the sta4es in"ol"ed or the "ale o) sb3ect matter o)

appeal. /he "ale or the sta4e o) appeal can be broadly

correlated to the capacity o) litigant. /he appellants in high

"ale appeals, mostly nder the special +cts are companies,

)irms, trsts or association o) persons or e"en indi"idals $ho

can all a))ord to pay higher cort-)ee $ithot any di))iclty. tis, there)ore, desirable that the p$ard re"ision o) cort-)ee

shold be nderta4en not merely $ith re)erence to appellants

$ho )all strictly $ithin the description o) companies6corporations

bt also other categories o) sitors depending on the "ale o)

the sb3ect matter in"ol"ed in the appeal. /his can be achie"ed

by prescribing ad "alorem cort-)ee sb3ect to the prescription

o) ceiling at a reasonable le"el. /hat means the higher the

sta4e, the more the litigant has to pay $ithin the ma5imm

limit. n the case o) ad "alorem cort-)ee, the )ee $ill be paid in

proportion to the "ale o) the claim. n )act, the Spreme Cort

"'

LatestLaws.com


31/37

LatestLaws.com

Rles adopt the ad "alorem classi)ication, bt, in "ie$ o) the

paltry ceiling limit o) Rs.&,6-, there is no possibility o)

collecting higher cort-)ee )rom those litigants inclding

corporations $ho can a))ord to pay higher cort-)ee. /he

Spreme Cort Rles prescribe the cort-)ee o) Rs.&2 i) the

amont o) "ale o) the sb3ect matter in dispte is Rs.&,,

or belo$. For e"ery Rs.1, in e5cess o) Rs.&, the cort-

)ee payable is Rs.2 $hich $or4s ot to hal) percent. So )ar,

there is no problem. Bt, it stops at the ceiling o) Rs.&,

$hich $as prescribed .& /he Commission is, there)ore o) the "ie$ that a re-loo4 at

the present rles go"erning the cort-)ee in respect o) appeals

(' T8e Supreme Court Ru7es& (35' an: (3##&& T8ir: S$8e:u7e& *art II Appe77ate 9uris:i$tion

"(

LatestLaws.com


32/37

LatestLaws.com

(Ci"il* )iled in the Spreme cort is highly desirable in "ie$ o)

the long passage o) time and the economic realities o) the day.

Hhile the hal) per cent rate o"er and abo"e Rs.&, can

remain (or it can be increased to one percent*, it $old be

reasonable to enhance the ma5imm cort-)ee at least to Rs.1

la4h. /hat is to say, )or the )igre Rs.&, occrring in clase

(1* o) the pro"iso to Sl. No. & o) Part- o) the Spreme Cort

Rles, Rs. 1 la4h (or more* needs to be sbstitted. /his is

broadly or sggestion and $e mst state that the Commission

has not done any speci)ic e5ercise to determine the e5act

antm as the Commission )eels that the Spreme Cort

Committee $old appropriately del"e into those details.

Frther, the )igre o) Rs.&2 $hich is the minimm payable as

$ell as the )ee o) Rs.&2 speci)ied in appeals incapable o)

"alation shold be sitably increased. /here is also e"ery

3sti)ication )or increasing the )ee )or special lea"e petitions,

$hich is presently a small sm o) Rs.&2. /he net reslt $ill be

that most o) the appeals )iled by the corporate and other

bsiness entities against ta5 6 )ee demands and other )iscal

liabilities and arbitration a$ards $ill come $ithin the net o)

enhanced cort-)ee regime. +t the same time, it $old be

rational and reasonable to charge only )i5ed cort-)ee (as

enhanced* in respect o) appeals that arise ot o) igh Corts

3dgments in ci"il matters, $here cort- )ee $old ha"e already

been paid on ad "alorem basis both at the trial stage and at the

"!

LatestLaws.com


33/37

LatestLaws.com

appellate stage. He may also mention that in case o) indi"idal

hardship, the appellant concerned can al$ays approach the

Spreme Cort )or e5emption o) cort-)ee.

>.0 /he Commission, on ta4ing a holistic "ie$ has recorded

its broad sggestions )or the enhancement o) the ceiling

prescribed in the Spreme Cort Rles in relation to ad "alorem

)ee as $ell as )i5ed cort-)ee. /he proper and e5pedient corse

$old be to address the Spreme Cort )or sitable p$ard

re"ision o) the pre"ailing cort-)ee 4eeping in "ie$ the long

passage o) time and the hea"y sta4e cases that are coming p

be)ore the Spreme Cort in relation to matters arising nder

)iscal and other special enactments. /he Spreme Cort may

perhaps constitte a Committee o) %dges and conslt the

Spreme Cort Bar +ssociation, i) necessary. +s the rles

)ramed by the Spreme Cort in regard to cort-)ee ha"e been

in operation )or more than hal) a centry, it $old be in the

)itness o) things to lea"e the decision to enhance cort-)ee to

the Spreme Cort in the )irst instance. t is desirable and

proper that the Parliament does not straight$ay proceed to

spersede the Spreme Cort Rles and prescribe the scales o)

)ee by itsel) throgh legislation. /he

""

LatestLaws.com


34/37

LatestLaws.com

Commission is o) the opinion that it $old be proper to

address the Spreme Cort indicating the tentati"e "ie$s o)

the Parliamentary Standing Committee and o) the #a$

Commission and sggesting an p$ard re"ision o) ma5immas $ell as )i5ed cort-)ee in Part- and in respect o) sch

other items in the Schedle as the Cort may consider

appropriate.

Union Territories

2 n regard to ma3or ?nion /erritories i.e., Chandigarh

and NC/ o) Delhi, the in)ormation soght )rom the igh

Corts as regards the applicable schedle o) cort-)ees

)or sits, appeals, etc. is a$aited. + brie) spplemental

report $ill be sbmitted by the Commission shortly, so

)ar as the ?/s are concerned.

%?S/CE P.I. REDDQ

CHAIRMAN

[JUSTICE SHIV KUMAR SHARMA] [AMARJIT SINGH]

MEMBER MEMBER

[DR. BRAHM A. AGRAWAL]

MEMBER-SECRETAR

Ne! De"#i-$$% %%$

D&te'( )*.$).)%$%

"+

LatestLaws.com


35/37

LatestLaws.com

A++en'i,

TABLE CURT EE /SU0REME CURT1

0ART I

RIGINAL JURISDICTIN

( Filing and registering plaint

&2.

! Filing and registering $ritten statement 2.

" Filing and registering set-o)) or conter-claim 2.

+ Reply to a conter claim 2.5 E5amining and comparing docment $ith the original, )or each )olio .2

# Redcing into $riting or, $here ta4en do$n in shorthand,

transcribing the deposition o) $itnesses, )or each )olio. .


36/37

LatestLaws.com

0ART II

A00ELLATE JURISDICTIN

1. Petition )or special lea"e to appeal &2.

1(a* Consolidated process )ee )or intimating contesting respondents 1.

&. #odging and registering petition o) appeal M $here the amont o)

"ale o) the sb3ect-matter in dispte is Rs. &, or belo$ that sm &2.

For e"ery Rs. 1, in e5cess o) Rs. &, 2.

)or e"ery thosand rpees or par

thereo)

n case, $here it is not possible to estimate at a money "alethe sb3ect matter in dispte

Pro"ided -

(1*that the ma5imm )ee payable in any case shall not e5ceed Rs. &, and0!1 that $here an appeal is broght by special lea"e granted by the cort credit shall be

gi"en to the appellant )or the amont o) cort )ee paid by him on the petition )orspecial lea"e to appeal.Q

0. #odging o) statement o) case o) ca"eatQ &.. +pplication )or re"ie$ o) 3dgement or order o) cort the same )ee as $as paion the

original proceedings

"#

LatestLaws.com


37/37

LatestLaws.com

2.petiton o) +ppeal nder Consmer Protection +ct, 1:'<

&2.

LatestLaws.com

Documents

Law Commission Report No. 236- Court-fees in Supreme Court Vis-A-Vis Corporate Litigation