1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition Nos.4684/2007, 5235/2007, 4905/2007, 4680/2007 and 3949/2007. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Writ Petition No.4684/07 Ms. R. Patro, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. Mirza, A.G. P. for State of Maharashtra. Writ Petition No.3949/07 Mr. R.R. Shrivasatava, Adv. for petitioner. Mr. Mirza, A.G.P. for State of Maharashtra. Ms. Tidke,Adv. for Union of India. Writ Petition No.4680/07 Mr. D.V. Chauhan, Adv. for Petitioner. Mr. Mirza, A.G.P. for State of Maharashtra. Ms. Tidke,Adv. for Union of India. Writ Petition No.4905/07 Ms. A. Jambhulkar, Adv. for Petitioner. Mr. Mirza, A.G. P. for State of Maharashtra. Writ Petition NO.5235/2007 Mr. J.L. Bhoot, Adv. for Petitioners Ms. Tidke, Adv. holding for Adv. Lambat for respondents. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE, J. DATED : 09/09/2008. By these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the District Judge, Nagpur wherein the petitioners have been directed to pay Court fees as provided in Article 3 of Schedule I of Bombay Court Fee Act. In view of the pendency of review 2 application of the judgment in MIDC vs Goverdhan 2007(3) Mh.L.J. 514 the matter was adjourned. Mr Mirza, learned A.G.P. states that review has been now decided and the same has been dismissed. Moreover, the Division Bench of this Court to which Shri R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J (as he then was) to a party in another Appeal, after considering the arguments raised in the present petitions has held that the applicant in an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act has to pay Court Fees placing reliance upon the judgment in Goverdhan's case. In view of this position, there is no merit in the present petitions. Consequently, the petitions stand dismissed. JUDGE Ambulkar.