SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ker) 55

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
SHREE DHANWANTARI CHITS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED – Petitioner
Versus
BABU S/O VETTIYATTIL AYYAPPAN – Respondent
O.P. (C) No. 2688 of 2023
Decided On : 17-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: N.M. MADHU, C.S. RAJANI.

The legal benefit fund is a type of court fee and is refundable under Section 69A of the Act to promote amicable settlements.

Headnote:

Refund - Legal Benefit Fund - Kerala Court fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, Section 76

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a refund of the legal benefit fund paid on account of a successful settlement in mediation. The court declined the refund, stating that the legal benefit fund is an additional court fee and refunding it would defeat the fund's purpose.

Finding of the Court:

The court found in favor of the petitioner, stating that the legal benefit fund is a type of court fee and is refundable under Section 69A of the Act, which aims to promote amicable settlements.

Issues: Refund of legal benefit fund, interpretation of Section 76 of the Kerala Court fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959

Ratio Decidendi: The legal benefit fund is a form of court fee and is refundable under Section 69A to promote amicable settlements.

Final Decision: The Original Petition is allowed, and the court directed the learned Munsiff to refund the additional court fee collected under Section 76(1) of the Act to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

1. The question raised in this Original Petition pertains to the refund of the court fee collected towards the legal benefit fund. The plaintiff in the suit, O.S. No. 1312/2020, of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Thrissur, is the petitioner herein. He is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order, which declined the petitioner's application for refund of Legal Benefit Fund, the claim for which was made on account of the settlement arrived at between the parties in mediation. Since the issue involved is refund of legal benefit fund, State of Kerala represented by the Law Secretary was suo moto impleaded as additional 4th respondent. Notice to party respondents were dispensed with.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter was referred to mediation and it was settled successfully, wherefore, by virtue of Section 69A of the Kerala Court fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act’) the petitioner is entitled to refund of the whole of the court fee paid. It was pointed out that the court fee has been refunded; however, the amount paid towards the legal benefit fund has not been refunded, for the reason that the said amount is not a court fee, that it is levied as an additional court fee only as a mode of collecting the fund and that refund will defeat the purpose for which legal benefit fund is constituted. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon Section 76 of the Act, to point out that the Legal Benefit Fund is also an 'additional court fee' and hence, governed by Section 69A of the Act.

4. Learned Government Pleader argued in line with the reasoning stated in Ext.P3 order, to refuse refund.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court leans in favour of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 76 of the Act is extracted herein-below:

    “76. Legal Benefit Fund:

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force and subject to section 4A of the Act and sub-rule (1) of rule 397 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 it shall be competent for the Government to levy an additional court fee by notification in the Gazette, in respect of original petitions, original applications, appeals or revisions to tribunals, appellate authorities and original suits in Civil Courts other than in Family Court at a rate not exceeding one percent of the amount involved in the dispute and in other cases at a rate not exceeding one hundred rupees for each original suit, original petition, original application, appeal or revision.

Provided that in the case of appeals under the Kerala State Goods and Services Act, 2017, (20 of 2017), the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (15 of 1963), the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 (32 of 1976) and the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (30 of 2004), the maximum limit of additional court fee leviable shall not exceed rupees twenty thousand.

Explanation: The term “ amount involved in the dispute” as specified in sub-section (1), where it is capable of valuation, does not include the amount of valuation for the purpose of court fee, in suits for recovery of possession, partition and suits of similar nature and where fixed court fee is specified under this Act.

(2) There shall be constituted a legal benefit fund to which shall be credited:

(i) the proceeds of the additional court-fees levied and collected under sub-section (1).

(ii) fifty per cent of the court-fees levied and collected on mukhtarnama or vakalathnama under Article 16 of Schedule II of this Act.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an amount equal to seventy percent of the Legal Benefit Fund collected under subsection (2) shall be set apart every year towards the Fund constituted under Section 3 of the Kerala Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1980 and an amount equal to thirty percent of the Legal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top