TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, on settlement between the parties and withdrawal of the suit at the initial stage, the plaintiff was entitled to refund of half the court fee paid on the plaint.
Analysis: The application for recording compromise was supported by the affidavits of the parties and was filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In view of the settlement, the suit was withdrawn. Since the matter stood resolved at the initial stage, Section 16A of the Court-fees Act, 1870 entitled the plaintiff to refund of half the court fee. The connected application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was also disposed of.
Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to refund of half the court fee, and the Registry was directed to issue the requisite certificate for such refund.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
