Sunday 15 March 2015

Whether 100% court fees refund is possible when case is settled in mediation?



In the instant matter, the award has not been passed 
by the Lok Adalat.  Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 
1987 stipulates that every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed 
to be a decree of Civil Court or, as the case may be an order of any 
other   Court   and   where   a   compromise   or   settlement   has   been 
arrived   at,   by   a  Lok  Adalat  in   a   case   referred   to   it   under   sub­
section (1) of section 20, the Court­fee paid in such case shall be 
refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870. 
On consideration of provisions of Section 21 of the Legal Services 
Authorities Act, 1987, it is evident that an award of the Lok Adalat 
shall   be   deemed   to   be   a   decree   of   Civil   Court   and   the   matters 

wherein award has been passed by the Lok Adalat are governed by 
the   provisions   of   Legal   Services   Authorities   Act   and   as   such,   in 
such of those matters, refund of court fees shall be in accordance 
with the provisions of Court Fees Act, 1870.  It is to be noted that 
in Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, provisions 
contained in Court Fees Act, 1870, relating to refund of court fees, 
are incorporated.  Thus, it is a case of legislation by incorporation 
and by virtue of such incorporation, provisions of Court Fees Act, 
1870   relating   to   refund   of   court   fees,   are   made   applicable   in 

respect   of   award   passed   by   the  Lok  Adalat.    The   analogy 
applicable  to the  awards  of  Lok  Adalat  cannot  be  applied  to the 
decrees   passed   by   the   Courts   on   the   basis   of   settlement,   even 
though  same is reached in furtherance of  a mediation taken  up 
under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure.    Once it is held 
that provisions of Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959, are attracted, 
it   would   be   permissible   for   the   State   to   issue   notification 
prescribing   refund   of   court   fees   in   exercise   of   powers   conferred 
under Section 43(2) of the Act.  The notification dated 08.05.2013, 
thus, cannot be said to be ultra vires the powers exercisable by the 
State under Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
 WRIT PETITION NO.4919 OF 2014 

Sanjeevkumar Harakchand  Vs Union of India,

        CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
                                        V.K.JADHAV, JJ.
        DATE    : 01st  October, 2014
Citation;2015(2) MHLJ157 Bom,2014(6)ABR827, 2015(1)BomCR49

Heard.     Rule.     Rule   made   returnable   forthwith   and 
2
heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.
The petitioner is seeking a writ, order or direction to 

the State of Maharashtra for refund of entire amount of court fees 
to such of the litigants including the petitioner who have presented 
proceedings   in  the   Civil   Court   and   those   proceedings  have  been 
disposed   of   in   adaptation   of   any   of   the   modes  prescribed   under 
Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.  The petitioner also 
seeks   to   quash   notification   dated   08.05.2013,   issued   by   Law   & 
Judiciary   Department,   Government   of   Maharashtra,   bearing 
No.HCA.2010/C.R.87/D­19,   issued   under   Section   43(2)   of   the 
Maharashtra   Court   Fees   Act,   1959,   on   the   ground   that   the 
notification   is   contrary   to   provisions   of   Section   16   of   the   Court 
Fees Act, 1870 read with Sections 20 and 21 of the Legal Services 
Authority Act, 1987.   The petitioner also seeks a declaration that 
Respondent   No.2   has   no   authority   in   law   to  issue   a   notification 
contrary to the provisions of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 
and prays that all such notifications and rules, run contrary to the 
aforesaid provisions, be quashed and set aside.
3
The   petitioner   entered   into   an   agreement   to   sell 
immovable property situate at Aurangabad with Respondents No.3 
& 4.   Since the agreement to sell was not specifically performed, 

petitioner presented Special Civil Suit No.274 of 2013 in the Court 
of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, praying   for grant of 
relief of specific performance of contract.   Respondents No.3 & 4 
resisted the claim by filing written statement.   Learned 5 th  Joint 
Civil   Judge,   Senior  Division,  Aurangabad,   before   whom   suit   was 
pending,   considering   nature   of   the   suit,   directed   the   parties   to 
adopt   a   mode   for   alternate   dispute   resolution   prescribed   under 
Section   89   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure   i.e.   mediation.     On 
reference to mediator, the parties, after due deliberations and with 
the aid of the mediator, resolved their dispute amicably and terms 
of   settlement   were   presented   to   the   Court.     The   mediator   also 
submitted his report informing that the dispute is amicably settled 
between   the   parties.     On   07.04.2014,   terms   of   compromise   were 
presented to the Court and ultimately the trial Court was pleased 
to   dispose   of   the   suit   and   passed   decree   in   terms   of   the 
compromise.  The petitioner requested for refund of total court fees, 
however,   learned   5th  Joint   Civil   Judge,   Senior   Division, 
Aurangabad,   on   consideration   of   notification   issued   by   the 
Government,   referred   to   above,   was   pleased   to   permit   refund   of 
only 50% court fees.  
4
The   petitioner   contends   that   the   trial   Court   has 
committed serious error in permitting refund of only 50% of the 
court fees.   Reliance is placed on provisions of Section 16 of the 
Court Fees Act, 1870 whereunder, according to the petitioner, he is 
entitled to claim refund of total court fees deposited by him, since 
the   matter   has   been   disposed   of   in   view   of   adaptation   of   mode 
prescribed under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 
It  is contended  that  Section  21 of  the  Legal Services  Authorities 

Act,   1987,   provides   that   where   a   compromise   or   settlement   has 
been arrived at, before a Lok Adalat  in a case referred to it under 
sub­section (1) of Section 20 of the said Act, the court fee paid in 
such   case   shall   be   refunded   in   the   manner   provided   under   the 
Court Fees Act, 1870.     It is provided that independently also, in 
view of provisions of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, which 
shall  have  precedence  over   the  State  enactment,  total  court   fees 
In   order   to   controvert   the   contentions   raised   by 
5
paid by the litigant shall have to be refunded.
petitioner,   an   affidavit­in­reply   has   been   presented   on   behalf   of 
Respondent­State,   by   Solicitor­cum­Deputy   Secretary   to 
Government,   Law   and   Judiciary   Department,   Aurangabad.     It   is 
contended that in exercise of the powers conferred by sub­section 
(2)   of   Section   43   of   the   Maharashtra   Court   Fees   Act,   1959,   the 
Government of Maharashtra, by its Order No.HCA.2010/C.R.87/D­
19,   dated   08.05.2013,   has   directed   to   refund   such   part   of   the 
Court fees paid by the parties, as specified in column (2) of the 
Schedule thereto.  It is contended that 100% of the Court fee paid 
by   the   plaintiff,   appellant   or   petitioner   is   refundable   in   the 
proceedings referred to in Articles 20, 21, 22, 23, 38A, 38B  and 
38C of the Schedule II of the Act.  It is contended that in all other 
matters,   not   covered   under   clause   1   of   the   circular   dated 
08.05.2013,   refund   of   only   50%   court   fees   is   permissible.     It   is 
further contended by the State that Section 66 of the Karnataka 
Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, also provides for refund 
of 50% of the Court fees whenever  by  agreement  of parties, any 
suit is dismissed as settled out of Court or ended in a compromise 
decree   before   any   evidence   has   been   recorded   or   any   appeal   is 
disposed of before commencement of hearing.   Section 69 of the 
Tamil   Nadu   Court   Fees   and   Suits   Valuation   Act,   1955,   also 
provides for similar provision   in respect of refund of 50% of the 
Court fees.  It is, thus, contended that the directions issued under 
Order dated 08.05.2013, in observance of sub­section (2) of Section 
43 of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959, is legal and proper 
and claim raised by the petitioner, in the instant petition, does not 
The   petitioner   contends   that   when   the   parties   are 
6
deserve consideration.
directed to adopt any of the mode for resolution of dispute provided 
under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is inconsistent 
with the object incorporated in Section 89 of the Code not to direct 
refund   of   court   fees.     Section   89   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure 
provides   for   settlement   of   dispute   outside   the   Court.     The 
provisions are incorporated in view of recommendations made by 
the   Law   Commission   of   India   and   Malimath   Committee.     It   was 
suggested   by   Law   Commission   that   the   Court   may   require 
attendance of any party to the suit or proceeding  in person with a 
view to arrive at an amicable settlement.   The Malinath Committee 
recommended   to   refer   the   dispute   after   issues   are   framed,   for 
settlement   either   by   way   of   arbitration,   conciliation,   mediation, 
judicial settlement  through Lok Adalat.  It is only when the parties 
fail   to   get   their   disputes   settled   through   any   of   the   alternate 
disputes   resolution   method,   the   suit   shall  proceed   further.     The 
provisions of Section 89 of the Act are held to be constitutional and 
valid by the Supreme Court in the matter of Salem Advocates Bar 
Association,   Tamil   Nadu   Vs.   Union   of   India,   reported   in   AIR 
2003 SC 189.  The Apex Court, in the matter of Salem Advocates 

Bar   Association  (supra),   has   suggested   that   in   the   event   of 
compulsory reference to conciliation/mediation, if expenditure on 
conciliation/mediation   is   borne   by   the   Government,   it   may 
encourage the parties to come forward for conciliation/mediation. 
The Court further observed that on the other hand, if the parties 
feel that they have to incur extra expenditure for resorting to such 
ADR.  modes, it  is likely  to act as a  deterrent  for  adopting  these 
methods. The Central Government is directed to examine it and if 
agreed,  it  was  requested  to  make specific  financial  allocation  for 

judiciary   for   including   the   expenses   involved   for 
mediation/conciliation   under   Section   89   of   the   Code   of   Civil 
89
Procedure.  Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads thus:
Settlement of disputes outside the Court­
(1)
Where it appears to the Court that there exist 
elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to 
the parties, the Court shall formulate the terms of 
settlement   and   give   them   to   the   parties   for   their 
observations and after receiving the observations of 
the parties, the Court may reformulate the terms of 
a possible settlement and refer the same for­
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d) arbitration;
   conciliation;
  judicial settlement including settlement 
     through Lok Adalat; or
       mediation.
(2) Where a dispute has been referred­
(a)
for arbitration or conciliation, the provisions of 
the   Arbitration   and   Conciliation   Act,   1996   (26   of 
1996) shall apply as if the proceedings for arbitration 
or conciliation were referred for settlement under the 
provisions of that Act;

(b)
to  Lok  Adalat,  the Court shall refer the same 
to the  Lok  Adalat  in accordance with the provisions 
of sub­section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Services 
Authority   Act,   1987   (39   of   1987)   and   all   other 
provisions of that  Act shall apply  in respect  of the 
dispute so referred to the Lok Adalat;
ig
(c)
for   judicial   settlement,   the   Court   shall   refer 
the   same   to   a   suitable   institution   or   person   and 
such institution or person shall be deemed to be a 
Lok  Adalat  and   all   the   provisions   of   the   Legal 
Services Authority Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) shall apply 
as if the dispute were referred to a Lok Adalat under 
the provisions of that Act;
(d)
for   mediation,   the   Court   shall   effect   a 
compromise   between   the   parties   and   shall   follow 
such procedure as may be prescribed.  
7
It must be noted that after incorporation of Section 89 
by virtue of Amendment Act of 1999, the provisions of Section 16 of 
the Court Fees Act, 1870 came to be amended, which reads thus:
16  Refund   of   fee:­   Where   the   court   refers   the 
parties   to   the   suit   to   any   one   of   the   mode   of 
settlement of dispute referred to in Section 89 of the 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the plaintiff shall be 
entitled   to   a   certificate   from   the   court   authorising 
him   to   receive   back   from   the   Collector,   the   full 
amount of the fee paid in respect of such plaint.
The   amendment   has   been   brought   into   force   in   the 
year 1999.
8
The procedure to be followed for conduct of mediation 
and for Lok Adalats is provided for in the Legal Services Authorities 
Act,   1987.     Section   19   of   the   Act   contemplates   holding   of  Lok 
Adalats for amicable settlement of the dispute.  Section 20 provides 

for cognizance of the cases by  Lok  Adalats.   Whereas, Section 21 
fees.  Section 21 (1) reads thus:
provides for award of Lok Adalat and also prescribe refund of court 


Award of Lok Adalat  :­ (1) Every award of the 
Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil 
court or, as the case may be, an order of any other 
court   and   where   a   compromise   or   settlement   has 
been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to 
it under  sub­section (1) of section 20, the court­fee 
paid  in  such case shall be  refunded  in  the manner 
provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870.
The   petitioner   submits   that   although     suit,   in   the 
instant   matter,   has   not   been   settled   before  Lok  Adalat,  however, 
settlement   has   been   arrived   at   in   mediation   proceedings   in 
pursuance to a reference made by the Court compulsorily in view 
of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  The petitioner, thus, 
submits that in view of provisions of Section 16 of the Court Fees 
Act, 1870, he is entitled to claim refund of court fee and operation 
of Section 16 cannot be controlled or nothing contrary to what has 
been   provided   under   Section   16   of   the   Act   of   1870   can   be 
prescribed   under   the   Maharashtra   Court   Fees   Act,   1959   and   if 
such prescription is made, same shall be deemed to be contrary to 
the Constitutional mandate under Article 254 of the Constitution 
of   India.    It  is   contended  that  amendment   prescribing   refund  of 
court   fees   under   Section   16   of   the   Court   Fees   Act,   1870,   is 
incorporated   in   1999,   which   is   much   later   in   point   of   time       of 
prescription   of   Section   43   of   the   Maharashtra   Court   Fees   Act, 
1959.   It is, thus, contended that provisions of law made by the 
State Legislature, which is repugnant to the provisions of law made 
by   the   Parliament,   shall   give   way   to   the   law   made   by   the 

The   contention   raised   by   the   petitioner,   though 
10
Parliament.
appears to be attractive, however, same cannot be accepted for the 
reason   that   Court   Fees   Act,   1870,   is   a   pre­Constitutional 
enactment, and not enforceable in the State of Maharashtra after 
enforcement of Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959.  On consideration of 
List I incorporated in Seventh Schedule under Article 246 i.e.  the 
Union list, it is noticed that same provides for the subjects matter 
ig
in respect of which Parliament has exclusive power to make laws. 
The   Parliament   has   exclusive   powers   to   make   law   relating   to 
subjects enumerated in List I of Seventh Schedule i.e. Union list. 
Entry No.77 relates to Constitution, Organization, Jurisdiction and 
powers of the Supreme Court (including contempt of such Court), 
and the fees taken therein; persons entitled to practise before the 
Supreme Court.   Entry 79 relates to Extension of the jurisdiction 
of   a   High   Court   to,   and   exclusion   of   the   jurisdiction   of   a   High 
Court   from,   any   Union   territory.     Entry   95   is   in   respect   of 
Jurisdiction and powers of all Courts, except the Supreme court, 
with   respect   to   any   of   the   matters   in   this   List;   admiralty 
jurisdiction.  Whereas, Entry 96 relates to Fees in respect of any of 
the matters in the said List, but not including fees taken in any 
Court.   List II of Seventh Schedule is the State List and it is the 
State Legislature which has powers to make laws for such State or 
any part thereof in respect to any of the matters enumerated in 
List II in the Seventh Schedule.  The State List incorporates Entry 
65   as   regards   Jurisdiction   and   powers   of   all   Courts,   except   the 
Supreme Court, with respect to any of the matters in the said List. 
Entry 66 relates to Fees in respect of any of the matters in the said 

List,   but   not   including   fees   taken   in   any   Court.     List   III   of   the 
Seventh Schedule is Concurrent List in respect of which both the 
Parliament as well as State Legislature shall have jurisdiction and 
powers   to   make   laws;   and   relevant   Entry   is   at   Sr.No.47   which 
prescribes Fees in respect of any of the matters in the said List, 
but not including fees taken in any Court.  
11
Thus, so far as State of Maharashtra is concerned, the 
subject  relating  to prescription of  fees in the  Courts,  which is a 
ig
part of State Judiciary and referrable to the matters included in 
List II of Seventh Schedule, is exercisable by the State Legislature. 
The State of Maharashtra has enacted law relating to levy of court 
fees, namely Maharashtra Court Fees Act, being Act No.XXXVI of 
1959.  In view of the said enactment, Court Fees Act, 1870 stands 
repealed so far as State of Maharashtra is concerned.  The matters 
arising   in   the   Courts   in     State  of   Maharashtra   shall  have   to  be 
dealt with in accordance with Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959. 
The   Indian   Court   Fees   Act,   1870   is   no   longer   applicable   to   the 
judgment   of   this   Court   in   the  matter   of    Pushpabai  Shankerlal 
Sura and others Vs. The Official Liquidator, Sholapur Oil Mills 
Ltd., reported in AIR 1970 Bombay 271.   The Division Bench has 
observed in paragraph 3 of the judgment as below:
State of Maharashtra.     We are supported by the Division Bench 
“3
As we have recently observed in a similar case 
L.P.A. No.44 of 1968, dated 15.10.1968 (Bombay), the 
said   Act   has   been   recast   in   1959   and   the   Indian 
Court ­Fees Act, 1870, is no longer applicable to this 
State.”   
12
In view of above, the contention raised by the petitioner 

in respect of applicability of provisions of Section 16 of the Court 
Fees Act, 1870 and primacy of said provisions, does not deserve 
13
consideration.
Learned   Counsel   appearing   for   the   petitioner   has 
placed reliance on the judgment delivered by Kerala High Court in 
the   matter   of  Vasudevan   V.A.   Vs.   State   of   Kerala   and   others, 
reported in AIR 2004 Kerala 43, wherein the question which arose 
for consideration was, as to whether petitioner therein is entitled 

for refund of whole court fees paid in the suit which was ultimately 
referred to  Lok  Adalat  and settled between the parties.   Learned 
Single Judge of Kerala High Court, on consideration of provisions 
of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, recorded a 
conclusion   that   since   an   award   has   been   passed   by   the  Lok 
Adalat, which has a force of decree, the matter would be governed 
by the provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act and petitioner 
would be entitled to refund of court fees. 
14
In the instant matter, the award has not been passed 
by the Lok Adalat.  Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 
1987 stipulates that every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed 
to be a decree of Civil Court or, as the case may be an order of any 
other   Court   and   where   a   compromise   or   settlement   has   been 
arrived   at,   by   a  Lok  Adalat  in   a   case   referred   to   it   under   sub­
section (1) of section 20, the Court­fee paid in such case shall be 
refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870. 
On consideration of provisions of Section 21 of the Legal Services 
Authorities Act, 1987, it is evident that an award of the Lok Adalat 
shall   be   deemed   to   be   a   decree   of   Civil   Court   and   the   matters 

wherein award has been passed by the Lok Adalat are governed by 
the   provisions   of   Legal   Services   Authorities   Act   and   as   such,   in 
such of those matters, refund of court fees shall be in accordance 
with the provisions of Court Fees Act, 1870.  It is to be noted that 
in Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, provisions 
contained in Court Fees Act, 1870, relating to refund of court fees, 
are incorporated.  Thus, it is a case of legislation by incorporation 
and by virtue of such incorporation, provisions of Court Fees Act, 
1870   relating   to   refund   of   court   fees,   are   made   applicable   in 

respect   of   award   passed   by   the  Lok  Adalat.    The   analogy 
applicable  to the  awards  of  Lok  Adalat  cannot  be  applied  to the 
decrees   passed   by   the   Courts   on   the   basis   of   settlement,   even 
though  same is reached in furtherance of  a mediation taken  up 
under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure.    Once it is held 
that provisions of Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959, are attracted, 
it   would   be   permissible   for   the   State   to   issue   notification 
prescribing   refund   of   court   fees   in   exercise   of   powers   conferred 
under Section 43(2) of the Act.  The notification dated 08.05.2013, 
thus, cannot be said to be ultra vires the powers exercisable by the 
State under Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959.
15
In view of the discussion as above, writ petition does 
not deserve consideration and deserves to be dismissed and same 
is accordingly dismissed. 
16
While   disposing   of   the   writ   petition,   we   deem   it 
appropriate   to   recommend   the   State   Government   to   issue 
necessary   notification   or   to   bring   out   necessary   amendment 
incorporating   provision   in   respect   of   refund   of   court   fees   to   the 

extent of 100% in respect of the matters which are disposed of by 
the Courts on adaptation of   any of the modes prescribed under 
Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.  Such a step would 
be in consonance with the directives issued by the Supreme Court 
in Salem Advocates Bar Association Vs. Union of India (supra), 
as well as it would bring parity with the provisions of Section 21 of 
the Legal Services Authorities Act and Section 16 of the Court Fees 
Act,  1870.       Thus,  in  order  to  bring   uniformity  in  the  matter   of 
refund   of   court   fees   and   to   eliminate   discrepancies   so   far   as 
matters disposed of   in view of the award passed by  Lok  Adalat; 
and such of those matters which are disposed of in terms of the 
settlement   arrived   at   on   the   basis   of   observance   of   any   of   the 
modes prescribed under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 
a direction needs to be issued by the State of Maharashtra to take 
effective  steps.     Such   a   positive   move   will  also   give   boost   to  the 
movement of Alternate Disputes Resolution, which, in fact, curtails 
precious   time   of   the   Court   as   well   as   avoids   unnecessary   and 
prolonged indulgence in litigation before the Court.   We hope and 
trust   that   Respondent­State   would   consider   this   suggestion 
earnestly and take measures expeditiously.  
17
Rule stands discharged.  There shall be no order as to 
costs.  
Copy   of   this   judgment   be   forwarded   to   the   Principal 
Secretary,   Law   and   Judiciary   Department,   Government   of 
Maharashtra, for necessary compliance.
    

          V.K.JADHAV
     JUDGE
        R.M.BORDE
    
   JUDGE



Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment