A petition challenging the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 including the Maharashtra Court Fees (Amendment) Act, 2017 has been filed in the Bombay High Court..The Advocates’ Association of Bombay High Court, an association of lawyers practicing at the Aurangabad bench of the High Court, filed the petition which is likely to be heard on January 30..The petitioner association terms the Maharashtra Court Fees (Amendment) Act, 2017 as unconstitutional, arbitrary and ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 38, 39A, 225, 277, and 372 of the Constitution of India..The Amendment Act, which had received the assent of the Governor of Maharashtra on January 16, proposes to substantially hike the court fees payable in the state. The petition points out that the court fees will be increased by more than 300% for filing of plaints and probates..The petition, filed by Talekar and Associates, also states that the court fees of the state is 200-1000% higher than the fees charged in other states..“The maximum limit for ad-valorem fee was 3,00,000 INR prior to the 2017 amendment, whereas it is now raised to 10,00,000 INR after the 2017 amendment. Other States have a maximum limit of INR 75,000/- (Gujarat and Jammu and Kashmir), INR 50,000/- (West Bengal), 15,000/- (Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland and Mizoram).”.It is the contention of the petitioners that the Legislature, by way of imposing exorbitant court fees, has adversely affected the functioning of the High Court, and has also brought down the image and dignity of the institution. Further, such an “exorbitant rise” in the court fees will deter and discourage litigants from approaching the High Court to seek remedy..It is further averred that any fee taken by the High Court will form part of the Consolidated Fund of India, out of which salaries of the officers and servants of the High Court are charged, and has no relation to the expenditure on the service rendered. Thus, it is contended, the court fees assumes the character of tax..The petition also states,.“…the State has not increased expenses on the administration of Courts and tribunals in recent years, nor has proposed any increased quality of service, thus the intention of the State is clearly to use the levy for increase in general revenues of the State. Moreover, the State is receiving huge funds by way of court Fees as there has been explosion in the litigation in the recent past…”.Moreover, it is contended that the State of Maharashtra does not have the legislative competence to impose higher court fees than what is already prescribed in the Court Fees Act, 1870..The petition places reliance on the judgment in Delhi High Court Bar Association v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, wherein the Delhi High Court had struck down the Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2012, holding that the Delhi Assembly lacked legislative competence to amend the law..Based on the grounds above, the petitioner association has pleaded that the High Court hold the Amendment Act as being unconstitutional, and stay its operation pending disposal of the petition..Read the petition:.Read Comparative Chart:
A petition challenging the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 including the Maharashtra Court Fees (Amendment) Act, 2017 has been filed in the Bombay High Court..The Advocates’ Association of Bombay High Court, an association of lawyers practicing at the Aurangabad bench of the High Court, filed the petition which is likely to be heard on January 30..The petitioner association terms the Maharashtra Court Fees (Amendment) Act, 2017 as unconstitutional, arbitrary and ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 38, 39A, 225, 277, and 372 of the Constitution of India..The Amendment Act, which had received the assent of the Governor of Maharashtra on January 16, proposes to substantially hike the court fees payable in the state. The petition points out that the court fees will be increased by more than 300% for filing of plaints and probates..The petition, filed by Talekar and Associates, also states that the court fees of the state is 200-1000% higher than the fees charged in other states..“The maximum limit for ad-valorem fee was 3,00,000 INR prior to the 2017 amendment, whereas it is now raised to 10,00,000 INR after the 2017 amendment. Other States have a maximum limit of INR 75,000/- (Gujarat and Jammu and Kashmir), INR 50,000/- (West Bengal), 15,000/- (Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland and Mizoram).”.It is the contention of the petitioners that the Legislature, by way of imposing exorbitant court fees, has adversely affected the functioning of the High Court, and has also brought down the image and dignity of the institution. Further, such an “exorbitant rise” in the court fees will deter and discourage litigants from approaching the High Court to seek remedy..It is further averred that any fee taken by the High Court will form part of the Consolidated Fund of India, out of which salaries of the officers and servants of the High Court are charged, and has no relation to the expenditure on the service rendered. Thus, it is contended, the court fees assumes the character of tax..The petition also states,.“…the State has not increased expenses on the administration of Courts and tribunals in recent years, nor has proposed any increased quality of service, thus the intention of the State is clearly to use the levy for increase in general revenues of the State. Moreover, the State is receiving huge funds by way of court Fees as there has been explosion in the litigation in the recent past…”.Moreover, it is contended that the State of Maharashtra does not have the legislative competence to impose higher court fees than what is already prescribed in the Court Fees Act, 1870..The petition places reliance on the judgment in Delhi High Court Bar Association v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, wherein the Delhi High Court had struck down the Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2012, holding that the Delhi Assembly lacked legislative competence to amend the law..Based on the grounds above, the petitioner association has pleaded that the High Court hold the Amendment Act as being unconstitutional, and stay its operation pending disposal of the petition..Read the petition:.Read Comparative Chart:
