Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Abhishek Jain - Appellant
Versus
Manoj Kumar Jain - Respondent
Execution Petition No. 57 of 2021, Execution Application (OS) No. 1137-1139 of 2021
Decided On : 22-12-2021
Court Fees Act - Refund of Fees - Section 16, 16A
Fact of the Case:
The parties filed an application for recording a compromise, and the terms of compromise were incorporated in the application. The judgment debtor agreed to pay a total sum to the decree holder and provided a schedule for payments. The judgment debtor also undertook not to sell, mortgage, or transfer his shares in certain companies until the decrees were satisfied. The court disposed of the execution petition and pending applications in terms of the compromise.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decree holder was not entitled to a refund of court fees as per the interpretation of Section 16A of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
Issues: Recording of compromise, refund of court fees
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the decree holder was not entitled to a refund of court fees as the provision for refund applies only to suits and appeals, not to execution petitions.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the execution petition and pending applications in terms of the compromise and held that the decree holder was not entitled to a refund of court fees.
JUDGMENT
Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - EX.APPL. (OS) 1401/2021 (u/S. 151 CPC)
1. The present application has been filed by both the parties for recording compromise between the parties.
2. Vide order dated 06.12.2021, adjournment was sought to finally arrive at a settlement.
3. Today, learned counsel for judgment debtor appears and on instructions, has given an undertaking that matter has been settled between the parties out of the Court.
4. Learned counsel for the decree holder submits that the terms of compromise are incorporated in para 4 to 7 and 9 of present application and accordingly, prayed that the present execution petition be disposed of.
5. Accordingly, para 4 to 7 and 9 are incorporated in the compromise which are as under:-
"4. That the Judgement Debtor has agreed to pay to the Decree Holder a total sum of Rs.2,25,00,000/- as per the Schedule laid down hereinafter, and also on the terms laid down.
5. The Judgement Debtor has given a schedule, whereby the Judgement Debtor would be making payments to the Decree Holder on the terms and conditions as laid down herein.
The Judgement Debtor has paid to the Decree Holder a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs only) by Pay Order No. 082210 dated 6.12.2021 on Indusind Bank. Sector-63, Noida. Thereafter, the Judgement Debtor shall continue paying to the Decree Holder as per his convenience but shall complete payment of Rs.1,05,00,000/- latest by August 31, 2022. The Judgement Debtor shall pay a further sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore only) on or before June 30, 2023.
6. The Judgement Debtor agrees that if the schedule detailed above is not adhered to by the Judgement Debtor, then and in that event, the Decree Holder shall be entitled to execute the entire decretal amount, amounting to Rs. 4,94,13,787/- alongwith the interest as directed in the decree.
7. It is agreed that there are two distinct deadlines for the payments to be made by the Judgement Debtor:
(i) August 31, 2022 whereby the Judgement Debtor shall complete a further payment of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- to the Decree Holder.
(ii) June 30, 2023 whereby the Judgement Debtor shall pay to the Decree Holder a further sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore only).
If these two payments are made by the scheduled date by June 30, 2023 the Judgement Debtor would have paid a total sum of Rs. 2,25,00,000/-. It is agreed that the Judgement Debtor is liable to pay to the Decree Holder the entire sums of money as directed in the decrees dated September 30, 2019 in both the cases named above. However, it is further agreed that if the Judgement Debtor makes the two payments as detailed hereinabove, namely, one by August 31, 2022 and the other by June 30, 2023, the decrees would stand satisfied.
8. However, it is specifically agreed that even if there is default in complying with any of the two schedules, as detailed above, the entire decretal amounts shall be payable by the Judgement Debtor to the Decree Holder. The Judgement Debtor has been made to understand that a default in the payments on the two dates mentioned above namely August 31, 2022 and June 30, 2023 by even one day shall make the entire decretal amount payable by the Judgement Debtor.
However, if the Judgement Debtor makes payments as detailed above, namely, a sum of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- by August 31, 2022 and the second payment of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore only) by June 30, 2023 both the decrees shall stand satisfied.
9. The Judgement Debtor Manoj Kumar gives an undertaking to the Court that till the two decrees mentioned above are satisfied, the Judgement Debtor shall not sell, mortgage or otherwise transfer his shares in the following three Companies in any manner whatsoever. The Companies and the shareholding are as follows:
(i) Mangalya Infrastructure Private Limited, with its Registered Office at B-7, Ground Floor, Ashoka Niketan, Nanak Vihar, Delhi-110092. (51% shares).
(ii) Mangalya Realtech Private Limited with Registered Office at 3520, Kucha Lalman, Delhi
The interpretation of Section 16A of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and its applicability to the refund of court fees in execution petitions.
Court endorsed the enforcement of a compromise agreement, ruling on terms of payment and the non-refundability of court fees under relevant provisions.
The court upheld the validity of an amicable settlement between parties in a specific performance case, emphasizing the importance of consent and equity in resolving disputes.
The court upheld the validity of a voluntary settlement between parties in a specific performance case, emphasizing the importance of good faith and equity in resolving disputes.
The main legal point established is the enforceability of a Settlement Agreement under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the court's authority to pass a decree based on suc....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 89 CPC and Section 16 of the Court Fee Act, 1870 can be applied to allow for the refund of court fees in cases where....
A lawful compromise between parties in a civil suit leads to case disposal and entitles the appellant to a court fee refund as per applicable law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that court fee can be refunded to the parties where a compromise/settlement has taken place even outside the Court, in line with the intention behi....
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
