The Madras High Court may see a revamp of its court fees

Litigants in Tamil Nadu stand to benefit from a likely change in court fees, after a Committee constituted by the High Court recommended a revamp of the current fee structure..Last year, the Madras High Court sought to review the court fees payable for various filings in Tamil Nadu courts. Hearing a challenge to the High Court Fees Rules of 1956, a bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Pushpa Satyanarayana directed the constitution of a Court Fees Rationalisation Committee in December 2015..In September this year, the Committee comprising retired judge K Sampath J., Senior Advocate R Krishnamoorthy and Barrister-at-Law Ramakrishnan Viraraghavan released its report. Among other recommendations, the Committee backed a reduction of fees payable for filing suits from the existing 7.5% ad valorem to a rate between 2 and 3 per cent..Apart from this, the Committee also recommended an increase in court fees payable for writ petitions and writ appeals from the current Rs. 200 to Rs. 1,000. The fees for Original Side Appeals may also see a whopping increase from Rs. 25 to Rs. 2000..The rationale behind increasing fees under some heads is to ensure that the recommendations are “revenue neutral”, which means that the High Court will not stand to benefit or lose in terms of revenue from the recommended revamp..As the report states,.“The distribution of a smaller increase in court fees across a larger number and categories of litigants is expected to offset the decrease in the court fees for a smaller number of litigants across two categories namely suits and appeals.”.Here is a list of the recommendations made by the Committee:.HeadCurrent FeesRecommended FeesPlaints7.5%2-3%Probate Duty3%2-3% (maximum of Rs. 25,000)Writ PetitionsRs. 200Rs. 1000Writ AppealsRs. 200Rs. 1,000-2,000Civil Revision PetitionsRs. 200Rs. 500Civil Miscellaneous Appeals–Rs. 100Original Side AppealsRs. 25Rs. 2000Arbitration Petition–Rs. 1,00,000 (maximum)Complaints under s. 138 of NI Act0.5%1% (maximum of Rs. 10,000)Declaration suitsMarket ValueRs. 5,000 (minimum)Suits for possessionMarket ValueRs. 5,000 (minimum)Partition suitsMarket ValueRs. 5,000 (subordinate courts) and Rs. 10,000 (High Court)Interlocutory applications, petitions, caveats–Rs. 20Vakalats–Rs. 10.The report also compares the fees payable for suits in courts across the country..StateCourt Fees (in %)Maximum Fees (in Rs)Andhra Pradesh1–Assam1 (approx)11,000Bihar1.650,000Punjab1 (approx)–Chhattisgarh3–Delhi1 (approx)–Gujarat275,000Himachal Pradesh1–Jammu & Kashmir0.575,000Karnataka0.5–Kerala1–Madhya Pradesh31,50,000Maharashtra1.53,00,000Manipur0.7510,000Meghalaya111,000Orissa2–Rajasthan0.5–Tamil Nadu7.5–Uttar Pradesh7.5–West Bengal150,000.Noting that the average court fees for suits in Indian courts is between 2 and 3 per cent, the Committee was of the opinion that it was high time for Tamil Nadu to, so to speak, follow suit..However, the Committee did not recommend having a maximum fee limit as it may lead to “to misuse by deliberate overvaluation of claims on a speculative basis”..While preparing the report, the Committee sought to garner opinion from various stakeholders through a questionnaire. Among the respondents were sitting judges of the Madras High Court, former Supreme Court and High Court judges, senior advocates, and all 246 bar associations in the state..One of the responses received was from Justice SA Kader, a retired judge of the High Court..“Court fees for the plaint in force at present at 7.5% is oppressive and serves as a regressive tax on the litigants. The sooner this tax-hell is eliminated the better for the litigant public”..The Committee also called for a change in the method of paying court fees and described the current methods as “obsolete, time-consuming and irksome”. To this end, it has suggested e-stamping, deposit of fees in a designated bank account and demand drafts as alternative methods. Further, it has suggested that information on court fees payable be published by the NIC information system.