Winding-up orders granting monetary relief can have the force of a decree for court-fee purposes, attracting ad valorem fee.
An enforceable winding-up order that conclusively determines liability and grants substantive monetary relief is treated as having the force of a decree for court-fee purposes. Read with the Companies Act, 1956, such an order is binding, conclusive, and functionally equivalent to a decree because it is appealable and enforceable in the same manner and subject to the same conditions. Accordingly, Schedule II, article 13 of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959 does not apply, and court-fee is governed by Schedule I, article 7, requiring ad valorem fee rather than the nominal fee.
Issues: Whether an order made in winding up proceedings, granting monetary relief and enforceable under the Companies Act, 1956, is an order having the force of a decree for the purpose of court-fee under Schedule II, article 13 of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959, or whether it falls under Schedule I, article 7.
Analysis: The court-fee provisions had to be read in the setting of the 1959 Act as a whole. For article 13 of Schedule II to apply, the appeal must be from an order that is not a decree or an order having the force of a decree. An order in winding up proceedings may not be a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure, but the substance of the matter was that such an order, when it determines liability and grants substantive monetary relief, is enforceable in the same manner as a decree and is also appealable in the same manner and subject to the same conditions. The court treated sections 634, 635, 482 and 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 as showing that the order is binding, conclusive, and functionally equivalent to a decree. Decisions relied upon to suggest a distinction between force of a decree and mode of enforcement were distinguished or not followed to the extent inconsistent with this approach.
Conclusion: An order made in winding up proceedings granting substantive monetary relief has the force of a decree, so Schedule II, article 13 does not apply; the proper court-fee is governed by Schedule I, article 7. The position was decided in favour of the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the court-fee question, and the order directing payment of court-fee was made to proceed on the basis that ad valorem fee was payable rather than the nominal fee under article 13.
Ratio Decidendi: An enforceable winding-up order that conclusively determines liability and grants substantive monetary relief is an order having the force of a decree for court-fee purposes.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
