Bare declaratory suit not barred by sick company law and cannot be valued as a money claim for court fee.

A suit confined to a bare declaration concerning a document was held not to attract the bar under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, because that provision applies to coercive proceedings such as winding up, execution, distress, or recovery of money against an industrial company. The court also held that court fee could not be demanded on the footing of a monetary claim under section 6(4)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 where no consequential relief, money decree, or recovery was sought, even though the document referred to an amount said to be recoverable. The challenge succeeded and the suit was directed to be numbered.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit seeking only a declaration in respect of a document was barred by section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985; (ii) Whether court fee could be demanded on the footing of a monetary claim under section 6(4)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959.

Issue (i): Whether the suit seeking only a declaration in respect of a document was barred by section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Analysis: Section 22 applies where proceedings are for winding up, execution, distress or similar coercive action against the properties of an industrial company, or for recovery of money or enforcement of security against it. The proceeding in question was a suit for declaration concerning a document and did not fall within those categories.

Conclusion: The bar under section 22 did not apply, and the objection to maintainability failed.

Issue (ii): Whether court fee could be demanded on the footing of a monetary claim under section 6(4)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959.

Analysis: The relief sought was only a declaration, with no consequential relief and no prayer for recovery of money or a money decree. On that footing, the suit was not one to be valued as a monetary claim merely because the document mentioned Rs. 75 lakhs as recoverable.

Conclusion: Court fee could not be imposed on the basis of Rs. 75 lakhs, and the impugned direction was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded, the order requiring payment of court fees was set aside, and the suit was directed to be numbered.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit confined to a bare declaration, without consequential monetary relief, is not barred by section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and cannot be treated as a money claim for court-fee purposes merely because the underlying document refers to an amount.

---