Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
In Re: Chidambaram Chettiar
Versus
Decided On : 03.04.1934
Refund of Court-Fee - Amendment of Decree - The court can order a refund of court-fees where the court-fees Act applies, there is an excess payment by mistake, or where, on account of the mistake of a Court, a party has been compelled to pay court-fees either wholly or in part. The court does not have the authority to direct a refund outside these cases.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an appeal but later withdrew it after the opposite party's revision petition was dismissed. The appellant sought a refund of court-fee, admitting there was no specific section in the court-fees Act to rely on.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that it can order a refund of court-fees in specific cases as outlined in the judgment. However, it clarified that it does not have the authority to direct a refund outside these cases.
Issues: The issue was whether the appellant was entitled to a refund of court-fee after withdrawing the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court can order a refund of court-fees where the court-fees Act applies, there is an excess payment by mistake, or where, on account of the mistake of a Court, a party has been compelled to pay court-fees either wholly or in part.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court did not direct a refund of the court-fees as the circumstances did not fall within the specific cases outlined in the judgment.
1. This appeal is withdrawn and is therefore dismissed. The appellant has filed an application fox amendment of the decree which was allowed. The opposite party filed a revision petition in this Court. For fear that the amendment will be disallowed the appellant filed this appeal. Now that the revision petition is dismissed, the appellant is willing to withdraw the appeal. In these circumstances, the appellant asks for a refund of court-fee Rs. He admits there is no section of the court-fees Act which he can rely on. He relies on C.T.A.M. Chettyar Firm v. Ko Yin Gy 1929 Rang. 158, Mohamed Saliqu Ali v. Ali Abbas 1983 Oudh. 170 and J.C. Galstaun v. Janaki Nath Roy 1931 Cal. 615.
2. In our opinion the Court can order a refund : (1) where the court-fees Act applies; (2) where there is an excess payment by a mistake; or (3) where, on account of the mistake of a Court a party has been compelled to pay court-fees either wholly or in part. Outside these cases we are not satisfied that we have authority to direct a refund. Once a case like J.C. Galstaun v. Janaki Nath Roy 1931 Cal. 615 is recognized we ought to permit refund in all cases where appeals are dismissed on the ground of limitation. We are not prepared to go so far. The fact that the delay in J.C. Galstaun v. Janaki Nath Roy 1931 Cal. 615 is due to the fault of the legal adviser has no bearing on the right of the Crown to the court-fee paid. We cannot direct a refund of the court-fees.
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
