2009 (7) TMI 1382 - HC - Indian Laws

Court orders full refund of court fees in settled appeal, citing entitlement under Court Fees Act.

Kamalamma and Ors. Versus Honnali Taluk Agricultural Produce Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. and Ors.

Kamalamma and Ors. Versus Honnali Taluk Agricultural Produce Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. and Ors. - TMI Issues:1. Refund of full court fees paid in an appeal dismissed as settled out of court.Analysis:The case involved a miscellaneous application filed under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, seeking the return of full court fees paid by the appellants in an appeal (RSA No. 1374/2005) that was dismissed as settled out of court. The appellants had initially been defendants in a suit filed by the respondent, which resulted in a decree against them. Subsequently, they filed appeals which were also dismissed, leading to the filing of RSA No. 1374/2005. During the pendency of this appeal, the matter was settled out of court between the parties. The court accepted the compromise and dismissed the appeal as settled out of court, reserving the question of refunding full court fees to the appellants. The appellants then filed a miscellaneous application seeking the refund of the court fees paid.The main contention revolved around whether the appellants were entitled to a refund of the full court fees paid by them in the appeal that was settled out of court. The appellant's counsel argued that since the dispute was settled amicably without court intervention, they should be refunded the court fees as per Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870. On the other hand, the Government Pleader contended that the precedent cited by the appellant's counsel was based on a case where settlement was done under Section 89 of the CPC, which was not the situation in the present appeal. The Division Bench's decision in the cited case allowed for a refund of court fees based on settlement under Section 89 of the CPC.The court examined the nature of settlements in legal proceedings, emphasizing that whether a dispute is settled through Section 89 of the CPC or directly between the parties without court intervention, the party paying court fees should be entitled to a refund as per Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870. The court disagreed with the Government Pleader's argument that the cited case's principles could not be applied to the present situation. Ultimately, the court allowed the miscellaneous application, directing the refund of the entire court fees paid by the appellants in the dismissed appeal that was settled out of court.