IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the conflicting interpretations of Section 16 and Section 16A of the Court Fees Act regarding the extent of refund of court fees when a dispute is settled privately without intervention of any ADR mechanism.

ORDER (Oral)

CS(COMM) 98/2023

1. The dispute between the parties stand amicably resolved and the terms of settlement have been placed on record in an application i.e. IA 25081/2023 jointly filed by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The terms of settlement read thus:

"i. The Defendants hereby recognize the Plaintiff as the proprietor of the registered design under no. 330602-001 in class 25-04 for ceiling fans, having the exclusive right to the use of the aforementioned design;

ii. The Defendants undertake to refrain themselves, their directors, proprietors, partners, their assignees in business, distributors, dealers, stockists, retailers, servants and agents from manufacturing, marketing, selling, or distributing any ceiling fans bearing a design that is identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered design;

iii. The Defendants affirm that there are no existing stocks of ceiling fans under the impugned design available with them;

iv. The Defendants state that they have discontinued all production and destroyed all the stationery, packaging, promotional and publicity material, and labels and moulds under the impugned design;

v. The Defendants confirm that they have not filed any proceedings against the Plaintiff before any Court/Tribunal or authorities except that Defendant No. 1 has filed a Cancellation Petition dated 03.01.2023 before the Controller of Patent and Design & Trade Marks, Kolkata on 04.01.2023 against the Plaintiff's registered design under no. 330602-001 in class 25-04 for ceiling fans. The Defendant No. 1 undertakes to withdraw the Cancellation petition within a period of 1 week post recording of the present settlement;

vi. The Defendant No. 1 further undertakes to withdraw its design application under no. 371134-001 in class 25-04 for ceiling fan;

vii. The Defendants would never challenge the rights of the Plaintiff in its design/copyright for those said products of the Plaintiff being the subject matter of the present suit, either directly or indirectly;

viii. The Plaintiff is foregoing the costs and damages as sought in the plaint at the request of the Defendants;

ix. The abovementioned undertakings have been tendered by Sh. Naresh S. Jain, i.e. Partner of Defendant No.1 and authorized signatory of Defendant No.2 and the same shall be binding on the Defendants, their partners, directors, or proprietor as the case may be, their assignees in business, licensees, franchisee, distributors, agents, servants and dealers for all times to come. The Defendants acknowledge that in case of breach of settlement, the Defendants shall be liable to contempt proceedings."

2. Parties are represented by learned Counsel, who undertake on behalf of the respective clients to remain bound by the terms of the settlement.

3. I have perused the terms of settlement and find them to be lawful and in order.

4. As the dispute stands settled, the controversy does not survive for consideration on merits.

5. The suit accordingly stands decreed in terms of the aforesaid settlement at which the parties have arrived. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement.

6. Let a decree-sheet be drawn up by the Registry accordingly.

7. Miscellaneous applications do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.

8. An interesting issue has come up for consideration in the present matter, which may require clarification by a Division Bench, as it is of recurring significance. Precisely stated, the issue relates to the extent to which the plaintiff would be entitled to refund of court fees, where the dispute is settled privately between the plaintiff and the defendants without intervention of any Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism.

9. Section 16^[16. Refund of fee. - Where the Court refers the parties to the suit to anyone of the mode of settlement of dispute referred to in section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), the plaintiff shall be entitled to a certificate