Supreme Court Rejects Refund Claim For Private Out-of-Court Settlement : 'Court Fee Refund Only If Case Settled Through ADR Mechanisms'

The refund of court fees is permissible only if the

matter is referred to Arbitration, Conciliation, judicial

settlement, including through Lok Adalat or mediation for

settlement and the case is decided in terms of such a

settlement and not otherwise. {Para 6}

7. In the case at hand, the settlement in terms of which

the second appeal was decided by the High Court is not on

reference to any of the above authorities/fora rather it was

an amicable settlement out of the court.

8. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the petitioner

is not entitled to refund of the court fees and the High

Court has not committed any error or illegality in refusing

such a prayer.

 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 723/2023

JAGE RAM Vs VED KAUR & ORS.

Date : 28-01-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL

 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

Print Page

Maharashtra Court Fees Act: Appellate Court Must Refund Court Fees If Matter Is Remanded Back To Original Court

 Section 15 in Maharashtra Court-fees Act.

15. Refund of Fees paid on memorandum of appeal-

If an appeal or plaint, which has been rejected by the lower Court on any of the grounds mentioned in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, is ordered to be received, or if a suit is remanded in appeal, on any of the grounds mentioned in rule 23 of Order XLI in the first Schedule to the same Code for a second decision by the lower Court, the Appellate court shall grant to the appellant a certificate, authorising him to receive back from the Collector or by way of e-payment, in the manner as prescribed by rules the full amount of fee paid on the memorandum of appeal:Provided that if, in the case of remand in appeal, the order of remand shall not cover the whole of the subject-matter of the suit, the certificate so granted shall not authorise the appellant to receive back more than so much fee as would have been originally payable on the part or parts of such subject-matter in respect whereof the suit has been remanded.

Print Page

Whether Litigant is Entitled To Refund Of Court Fees If Matter is Settled Outside Court Without Invocation Of S.89 CPC?

 In view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that even if the matter is settled by the parties outside the Court without invoking the provisions of section 89 CPC, the appellant while withdrawing his first appeal, is entitled to the refund of full Court fees as provided under section 16 of the Court Fees. {Para 7} Act, 1870. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

FIRST APPEAL No. 222 of 2015

DAYARAM  BALARAM PATEL,  Vs SMT. LAXMI AGRAWAL 

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL

ON THE 20th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Court Fees is to be refunded to plaintiff if plaint is returned

The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. However, the

plaint was ordered to be returned with liberty to file it before

the court of competent jurisdiction.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for refund of

the court fees. This application has been rejected only on the

ground that the appeal has been disposed of on merits. We are

unable to agree with the High Court. What has been disposed of is

only the rejection order under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of

Civil Procedure. This is no order on the merits of the suit. The

effect is that the plaint has been ordered to be returned to be

filed in the appropriate Court. Therefore, the petitioner was

entitled to refund of the court fees so that he can fix the court

fee in the State where he would like to file the suit. We therefore

set aside the order of the High Court and direct that the entire

court fees be refunded to the petitioner.

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).18102/2013

DR (COL.) SUBHASH CHANDRA TALWAR Vs T. CHOITHRAM 

Date : 25-10-2019

 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT

Print Page

Whether litigant who settles case in Lok Adalat is entitled to get refund of 100% Court Fees?

 For the reasons which we have recorded, we are of the view that
subSection
(1) of Section 21 is a case of legislation by incorporation.
Therefore, provisions of Section 16 of the Central Court Fees Act will
have to be read in into subSection
(1) of Section 21 of the 1987 Act.
To conclude, Section 16 of the Central Court Fees Act stands
incorporated in subSection
(1) of Section 21 of the said Act of 1987
and, therefore, when a civil suit is referred to a Lok Adalat which ends
with an Award of the Lok Adalat, the plaintiff is entitled to 100% refund
of Court fees paid in the said suit. Thus, a defendant who files a
counter claim in the suit is entitled to 100% refund of the Court fees
paid on a counter claim which is settled before a Lok Adalat.

Therefore, in the three cases in hand, the learned Trial Judge was not
justified in calling upon the petitioner to deposit 75% of the amount of
Court fees out of the refund amount paid to the petitioner. Hence, we
dispose of the petitions by passing the following order :ORDER
(i) We hold and declare that petitioners being plaintiffs in the
suits settled before the Lok Adalat held under the Legal Service
Authority Act, 1987 are entitled to 100% refund of Court fees.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9864 OF 2017

Maharishi Shankarrao MohitePatil Sahakar Sakhar Karkhana Ltd,  v/s. The State of Maharashtra

CORAM : A.S. OKA &
M.S. SANKLECHA, J.J.
DATED : 2nd APRIL, 2019
 (Per A.S. Oka, J.)
Citation: 2019(5) MHLJ 175,AIR 2019(NOC) 821 Bom

Print Page

Whether court fees can be refunded if suit is dismissed for want of jurisdiction?

 In the present case none of the ingredients of Section
89 of CPC are available as the Civil suit was a contested
matter in which objection of the respondent No. 4 has been
sustained and upheld by the learned trial Cout without there
being any consent of the present petitioner to amicably take
the matter to arbitration. Therefore, it can not be said that
the order dated 11.11.2009 meet the requirements of
Section 89 of CPC. Similarly Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC
provides that subject to the provisions to the Order 7 Rule
10 A of CPC the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be
returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit
should have been instituted. In the present case it is
apparent from the order dated 11.11.2009,annexure P/3 that
the plaint was not returned for presenting before the
appropriate Court. In the present case objection of the
defendant No. 4 was upheld and the suit was dismissed on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction due to availability of
alternate remedy of arbitration.
9. Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 provides for
refund of fee where a suit/dispute is settled in terms of
Section 89 of CPC,1908. As has been observed above the 
suit in question was not decided in terms of the requirement
of Section 89 of CPC, therefore, there is no infirmity in the
order dated 01.04.2010 passed by the Court of 3rd Additional
District Judge, Morena.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH
GWALIOR
Writ Petition No.2833/2010 (I)

Shriji Ware House V  Madhya Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., & ors.

Present : Hon. Mr. Justice Vivek Agarwal
O R D E R
(14.06.2016 )
Citation:AIR 2016 MP 187

Print Page

Court should refund court fees if case is settled in lokadalat

In Vasudevan Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2004 Kerala 43, Mudavangadan Abbas Vs. Kurrippurathodi Mayinkutty and others, 2012 (3) KLJ 560, Madhya Pradesh High Court in Vipin Trivedi Vs. Mohanlal Sharma, LAWS (MPH)-2011-5-3 and Vallabh Das Gupta Vs. Geeta Bai, 2004 (3) MPLJ 37 (DB) held that once the suit is decided by Lok Adalat on settlement, then the plaintiff would be entitled for refund of Court Fee paid in suit. By the impugned order Court below has illegally carved out a distinction between the case where the parties voluntary moved an application for reference of dispute to Lok Adalat and where, on possibility of settlement, could referred the matter to Lok Adalat.

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Sukhpali Devi vs Civil Judge (S.D.) And 2 Others on 25 May, 2016

Bench: Ram Surat (Maurya)

Print Page

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

Print Page