1 arbp766.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 766 OF 2009 C.D. Vora ....Petitioner. Vs. Chief Regional Manager, Mumbai L.P.G. Regional Office ....Respondent. None for the Petitioner. Mr. S. Mahadik for the Respondent. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 25th October, 2010 P.C.: The Government of Maharashtra had promulgated the Bombay Court-fees (Amendment) Ordinance, 2009, on 11th August, 2009 which had come into force on the 1st September, 2009. By notification dated 27th April, 2010 the same is now enacted as an Act called “The Bombay Court-fees (Amendment and Continuance) Act, 2010”, having given the date as announced earlier i.e. on 1st September, 2009. 2 This Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is dated 7th September, 2009, lodged on 8th September, 2009 and the filing endorsement is 6th October, 2009. Therefore, on the date of lodging 2 arbp766.09.sxw itself, the Petitioner was bound to pay the Court fees as per the Bombay Court Fees Act, 2010 which the Petitioner failed to pay till this date. 3 None for the Petitioner. Though the opportunity was granted to the Petitioner to take steps and pay the deficit Court fees in view of the amendment to the Bombay Court Fees Act, by conditional order dated 13th April, 2010, there is nothing on record to show that the Petitioner has paid the said deficit court fees. 4 In view of above, I am inclined to dismiss this Writ Petition for want of prosecution, though admitted on 3rd December, 2009. The Petition is dismissed accordingly. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)