| |
CDJ 2026 MHC 468
|
| Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras |
| Case No : A. No. 6 of 2026 & Arb O.P. DR. No. 110458 of 2022 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH |
| Parties : P.R. Sugasree Versus M/s. Anand Rathi Share & Stock Brokers Ltd., Tiruchur |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Applicant: M.L. Joseph for M/s. Chennai Law Associates, Advocates. For the Respondent: -----. |
| Date of Judgment : 21-01-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 -
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
- Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
- Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
2. Catch Words:
condone delay, deficit court fee, jurisdiction, arbitration, effective filing, condonable period, SR stage
3. Summary:
The applicant sought condonation of a 525‑day delay in paying a Rs.6,000 deficit court fee for an arbitration petition. The Court noted that earlier precedent (A.Nos.4872 & 4874 of 2025) limits condonation to delays within the ambit of Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner was directed to pay the fee on 28 Oct 2022 but only complied on 10 Mar 2025, exceeding the maximum condonable period of 120 days. The Court held that effective filing occurs only upon full payment of court fees, and thus it lacks jurisdiction to condone the delay. Consequently, the application to condone the fee delay was dismissed, and the arbitration petition was rejected at the SR stage.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer A No.6 of 2026: To condone the delay of 525 days in paying deficit court fees of Rs.6,000/- in the above OP D.No.110458 of 2022 and thus render justice.
Arb O.P.DR.No.110458 of 2022: To set aside the award passed by the panel of appellate arbitrators in Appeal (AM) No.CM/C-0036/2011 dated 24.08.2012 and communicated on 24.09.2012 and the Award of the sole arbitrator dated 21.01.2012.)
1. When this application came up for hearing on 07.01.2026, this Court passed the following order:
“This application has been filed to condone the delay of 525 days in paying the deficit court fee.
2. The issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the earlier order passed by this Court in A.Nos.4872 and 4874 of 2025 dated 23.10.2025, where this Court has held that the delay in paying the deficit court fee can be condoned, only if such delay falls within the ambit and scope of Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, beyond that, the Court cannot have the jurisdiction to condone the delay. When this was brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel for the applicant seeks for some time.
Post this application finally on 21.01.2026.”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and carefully perused the materials available on record.
3. It is seen that the applicant had originally filed the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (in short “the Act”) before the District Court, Thrissur. On 15.10.2020, the District Court, Thrissur, came to a conclusion that the seat of arbitration is in Chennai and hence, the said Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain and hear the petition. Accordingly, a direction was issued to return the petition to the petitioner, for presentation before the proper Court.
4. It is stated in paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the application that the petitioner was able to get back the original records only on 21.09.2022, due to the intervening pandemic period. After getting back the original records, the petitioner had filed the present petition on 30.09.2022.
5. On carefully going through the return memo issued by the Registry, it is seen that the papers were returned by the Registry on 28.10.2022, by pointing out to various defects. One of the defects that has been pointed out is that, there is a deficit court fee of Rs.6,000/- payable by the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner has taken back the returned papers on 31.10.2022.
6. The papers were again re-presented on 16.04.2024. The Registry once again returned the papers on 19.07.2024 and while returning the papers, the Registry had specifically taken note of all the earlier defects that were pointed out and had directed the petitioner to comply with the same. This means that even when the papers were re-presented on 16.04.2024, the deficit court fee was not paid.
7. The papers were once again re-presented on 10.03.2025 and it is only at this point of time, the deficit court fee was paid. The papers were once again returned on 27.11.2025, pointing out to certain defects and it was re-presented on 04.12.2025. Subsequently, this application has been numbered.
8. It is quite apparent from all the above particulars that the petitioner was directed to pay the deficit court fee as early as on 28.10.2022. For reasons best known to the petitioner, the deficit court fee was not paid till 10.03.2025. Hence, the application has been filed to condone the delay of 525 days in paying the deficit court fee.
9. This Court, in the earlier order that has been referred supra, has made it clear that effective filing takes place only when the entire court fee is paid. In the case in hand, the effective filing had taken place only on 10.03.2025, when the deficit court fee was paid. By then, the maximum condonable period of 120 days had lapsed. Therefore, this Court does not have the jurisdiction to condone the delay in paying the deficit court fee in line with the earlier order passed by me referred supra.
10. In the light of the above discussion, this application is dismissed. Consequently, Arb.O.P. (Com.Div.)DR.No.110458 of 2022 stands rejected at the SR stage itself.
|
| |
