Karnataka High Court
Vrl Logistric Ltd vs Indoco Remedies Ltd on 14 February, 2012
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
WP 63016/2010
1
iN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE j4f11 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012
BEFORE
THE HONtLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.No.6301612010 (GM-CPCI
BETWEEN:
VRL Logistric Ltd.,
Qiriraj Annexe Circuit House Road,
Hubli, represented by its
Managing Director,
Sri Anand, Sb Vijay Sankeshwar,
Age: 36 years, 0cc: Business,
R/o Kusugal Road, Keshwapur,
Hubli. Dist: Dharwad. ..PETITIONER
(By Sri Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, Adv4
AND:
Indoco Remedies Limited,
Indoco House 166, C.S.T.Road,
Santacruz (East), Mumbai
Pin 400 098, Representcd by its
Managing Director. ..RESPONDENT
(By Smt. Vidyavathi, AGA)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated
06.06.2009 on an application filed under Section 64 of the
Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1958 in 0.S.
passed by the learned II Addi. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and HI JMFC.
Hubli produced as Annexure-E and allow the application filed
under Section 64 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit
wp 63016/20 10
Valuation Act, 1958 in O.S. vide Annexure-C by directing the
trial Court to refund the entire court fees of Rs.24,767/- to the
petitioner.
This writ petition is coming on for preliminary hearing,
this day the Court made the following:
ORDER
1. In this writ petition, petitioner is calling in question the order dated 06.06.2009 passed by the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Hubli, thereby dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for refund of court fee paid by it.
2. O.S.No.566/2007 was filed by the petitioner seeking recovery of money. The plaint presented came to be returned vide order dated 06.06.2009, to present the same before the appropriate court holding that the Court at Hubli had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Pursuant to this order, the petitioner has re-presented the papers before the court at Mumbai and is prosecuting the casc there.
3. The plaintiff had paid court fee in a sum of Rs.24,767/- on the plaint. He made an application before the Court at Hubli, where he had presented the plaint initially invoking the provisions of Section 64 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. fl58 (for short, 'the Act'j, seeking refund of WP 63016/ 2010 3 court fee. The said application is dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials on record.
3. Section 64 of the Act deals with refund of court fee in cases of refund. Section 64 contemplates that in case where the plaint or memorandum of appeal which had been rejected by the lower court is ordered to be received, or where a suit is remanded in appeal for a fresh decision by the lower court, the court making such an order or remanding the appeal shall, where the whole decree is reversed and the suit is remanded, direct the refund to the appellant of the full amount of fee paid on the memorandum of appeal. The provisio, makes it clear that no refund shall be ordered if the remand was caused by the fault of the party who would othenvise be entitled to a refund. Therefore, it is apparent that the provision under Section 64 has no application to the facts of the case as in the case on hand neither the plaint was rejected nor is it a case of remand.
VP 63016/20 10 4
6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below ought to have used its inherent powers to pass an order directing refund of the court fee as the petitioner has not occupied the precious time of the court for prosecuting the suit because the plaint was returned at an initial stage for being presented before the appropriate court at Mumbai and the petitioner has indeed paid separate set of court fee while re presenting the plaint in the court at Mumbai.
7. In the absence of any provision in the Act entitling the petitioner to seek refund of the amount in such contingency, this Court cannot direct refund of the court fee. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had re-presented the plaint and the Court at Mumbai had raised objection and refused to accept the court fee paid and therefore he was constrained to pay separate set of court fee in the court at Mumbai. No such material was placed before the Trial Court. In such circumstances, invoking the provisions under Section 151 CPC does not arise. Hence, the writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.
aQ t,
CD CD
• :
) C
1
CD CD
CD C
CD
C
CD
CD CD
a
-)
EL
CD
C
CD C
CD CD
L
CD
a C
C CD
CD C
C C
CD
CD
C C
CD
C
-fr
C
2.
-fr
CD
C
C C
CD CD