Chander Bhan Gosain Vs. State of
Orissa & Ors  INSC 87 (5 April 1963)
05/04/1963 SARKAR, A.K.
CITATION: 1967 AIR 767 1964 SCR (2) 879
Supreme Court Practice-Appeal-Court Fee-One
petition filed under Art. 226 to challenge many assessment orders--Appeal
against one order of High Court-Court fee payable.
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 Constitution 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.
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 case (Civil
Appeals No. 462 to 465 of 1960). We do not think that these precedents cover the
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 intact 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
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 challenged 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.