Back
C. T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KAROL
Sanjeevkumar Harakchand Kankariya – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
Leave granted.
THE CHALLENGE
2. This appeal questions the correctness of the judgment and order dated 1st October, 2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) between the self-same parties, whereby the High Court refused the prayer of the appellant herein seeking -
(a) a writ, order, order or direction to the State of Maharashtra to initiate a complete refund of court fees of all litigants including the appellant whose proceedings before the Civil Courts were disposed of in accordance with Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure 19081[Hereinafter ‘CPC’];
(b) quashing of notification dated 8th May, 2013 issued by the Law and Judiciary Department, Government of Maharashtra bearing No. HCA.2010/C.R 87/D192[Hereafter, “the impugned notification”] as contrary to the provisions of the Court Fees Act, 18703[CFA, 1870] read with certain provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 19874[LSA Act, 1987];
(c) a declaration to the effect that Respondent No.2 i.e. State of Maharashtra had no authority in law to issue a notification contrary to the provisions of the CFA, 1870; and
(d) that all such notifications and rules running contrary t
Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) – Refund of court fees – Section 89 CPC nowhere correlates settlement of disputes by alternate mechanisms to amount of money that may be saved by parties in so far ....
Court fees should be refunded even when cases settle out of court, promoting private dispute resolution methods, which supports judicial efficiency.
The court affirmed the right to court fee refunds upon referral to arbitration, emphasizing that such a referral entitles plaintiffs to refunds irrespective of arbitration outcomes.
Section 70 of the Act comes into play only when there is no adjudicatory process.
The court established that litigants have an inherent right to a refund of court fees when their application is disposed of as infructuous, despite the absence of an explicit statutory provision for ....
The court ruled that a Lok Adalat's decision does not meet the requirements for res judicata, allowing the plaintiff’s appeal for specific performance to proceed.
Refund of court fees is only warranted where a formal compromise or settlement occurs, not based on post-execution statements lacking actual settlement.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
