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
ARanganadham Chetty BD Dhawan SK Mehta and KL Mehta for the petitioner
C K Daphtary Attorney Generalfor India R Ganapathy Iyer and R N Sachthey for the respondents
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 present case
In Lajwanti s Case there were a number of applications under section 66 2 of the Income tax Act for reference of the same question
There were in tact 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 section 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 references
The present case however originated out of one petition under article 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 callenged 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


Summary:
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 article 226 of the Constition 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 CA Nos
462 to 465 of 1960 referred to