Courts must adopt a purposive interpretation of fee refund provisions. When a dispute is resolved through statutory insolvency processes, it qualifies as a settlement under legal fee laws, entitling the claimant to a refund, as the core objective is to reduce judicial pendency.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. 15936/2026

1. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the Plaintiff for withdrawal of the present Suit and for refund of the court fees.

2. The present Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff for recovery of Rs.19,55,30,723/- along with pendete lite and future interest @ 15% per annum.

3. It is the case of the Plaintiff that an Agreement dated 28.07.2016 was entered into between the parties for supply of 5200 MT sugar for a total consideration of Rs.16,71,80,000/- and the Defendant issued a confirmation letter for supply of the same.

4. It is stated that the Plaintiff made an advance payment of Rs.10,00,000/- to the Defendant. It is stated that the Defendant supplied 1942.9 MT of sugar which was undisputedly priced at Rs.6,24,64,235/-.

5. It is stated that in respect of the balance advance amount of Rs.3,75,35,765/-, which was retained, no sugar was supplied by the Defendant within the stipulated period as agreed upon between the parties.

6. It is stated the since the Defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement despite receipt of substantial advance payments, the Plaintiff has filed the present Suit for recovery of Rs.19,55,30,723/- along with interest.

7. On 18.05.2026, it was stated by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would like to withdraw the Suit on the ground that the proceedings under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) have been initiated against the Defendant and that the Plaintiff has submitted their claims before the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP). The IRP had placed the Resolution Plan before the NCLT and in the Plan which was submitted, the Plaintiff had accepted the amount that was conferred under the same. The matter was then adjourned to 19.05.2026.

8. On 19.05.2026, this Court wanted to consider the issue as to whether the court fee could be refunded to the Plaintiff or not and reserved orders.

9. At the time of hearing the arguments, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff had placed reliance on Judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench in Proud Securities and Credits Private Limited v. Urrshila Kerkar & Anr., 2023 SSC OnLine Del 2270, which had in turn placed reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in High Court of Judicature at Madras through its Registrar General v. M. C. Subramaniam , 2021 (3) SCC 560.

10. While considering this aspect, this Court found that a formal application for withdrawal of the Suit had not been filed and therefore the case was put for directions today, i.e., 01.06.2026.

11. I.A. 15936/2026 has been filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC for withdrawal of the Suit and for refund of the court fees. Paragraph 3 of the said application reads as under:-

“3. That the Resolution Professional, appointed for the Defendant, filed an application before the NCLT for seeking approval of the resolution plan of Consortium of M/s Shri Dutt India Private Limited and M/s Shri Dutt Biofuels Private Limited. The said plan was resolution plan was approved by the NCLT vide order dated 06.02.2024. It is further submitted that Plaintiff has been categorized as "Operation Creditor other than workmen and employee" and has filed its claim with the resolution professional and has accepted the amount granted under the said order and has not challenged the same.”

12. Section 16 of the Court Fee Act permits refund of court fee in case the parties to a Suit settle their disputes. Section 16 of the Court Fees Act reads as under:-

“16. Refund of fee.- Where the Court refers the parties to the suit to anyone of