Delhi High Court - Orders
Bikash Kumar Singhdeo & Anr vs Mool Chand Sharma & Ors on 14 March, 2022
Author: Amit Bansal
Bench: Amit Bansal
$~7 (En Bloc)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 536/2019 & I.A.18489/2019 (for directions)
BIKASH KUMAR SINGHDEO & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs
Through: None.
versus
MOOL CHAND SHARMA & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
ORDER
% 14.03.2022
1. The present suit was settled between the parties vide order dated 20th December, 2019, in terms of which Court fees was ordered to be refunded in terms of Section 16A of the Court Fees Act, 1870. Subsequently, a joint application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs and the defendants seeking refund of the entire Court fees.
2. Counsel for the defendants has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in High Court of Judicature at Madras, Represented by Its Registrar General V s. M.C. Subramaniam and Ors., (2021) 3 SCC 560, wherein it has been observed as under:
"23. We find ourselves in agreement with the approach taken by the High Courts in the decisions stated supra. The purpose of Section 69-A is to reward parties who have chosen to withdraw their litigations in favour of more conciliatory dispute settlement mechanisms, thus saving the time and resources of the Court, by enabling them to claim refund of the court fees deposited by them. Such refund of court fee, though it may not be connected to the substance of the dispute between the parties, is certainly an Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAKSHI CS(COMM) 536/2019 Page 1 of 2 RAMOLA Signing Date:03.16.2022 00:09:45 ancillary economic incentive for pushing them towards exploring alternative methods of dispute settlement. As the Karnataka High Court has rightly observed in Kamalamma [Kamalamma v. Honnali Taluk Agricultural Produce Coop. Mktg. Society Ltd., 2009 SCC OnLine Kar 744 : (2010) 1 AIR Kant R 279], the parties who have agreed to settle their disputes without requiring judicial intervention under Section 89 CPC are even more deserving of this benefit. This is because by choosing to resolve their claims themselves, they have saved the State of the logistical hassle of arranging for a third-party institution to settle the dispute. Though arbitration and mediation are certainly salutary dispute resolution mechanisms, we also find that the importance of private amicable negotiation between the parties cannot be understated. In our view, there is no justifiable reason why Section 69-A should only incentivise the methods of out-of-court settlement stated in Section 89 CPC and afford step-brotherly treatment to other methods availed of by the parties."
3. The aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court has been followed by this Court in Western Infrabuild Products LLP Vs. Western Steel India and Ors., MANU/DE/0028/2022.
4. The present case was at an early stage when the settlement was arrived at, out of Court, between the parties. Only the pleadings had been completed and the issues were yet to be framed in the suit.
5. In view of the above authorities and given the stage at which the suit was settled, the plaintiffs are entitled to refund of full Court fees in terms of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act.
6. The Registry is directed to issue certificate of refund of Court fees in favour of the plaintiffs as per law and in terms of the above.
AMIT BANSAL, J.
MARCH 14, 2022/dk Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAKSHI CS(COMM) 536/2019 Page 2 of 2 RAMOLA Signing Date:03.16.2022 00:09:45