Court fee refund allowed where insolvency moratorium halted the suit and claims moved to the insolvency process.

Commencement of personal insolvency proceedings against defendants was treated as triggering an interim moratorium, preventing the suit from proceeding and requiring the plaintiff to pursue its claim in the insolvency process. On that basis, the court regarded the discontinuance of the suit as materially analogous to a settlement for purposes of Section 16 of the Court-Fees Act, 1870. Applying a liberal construction consistent with the provision's beneficial object, it held that refund of court fee was admissible and allowed the application.

---

---

Issues: Whether court fee could be refunded under Section 16 of the Court-Fees Act, 1870 when the suit could not proceed because insolvency proceedings under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 had commenced against the defendants.

Analysis: The Court treated the commencement of personal insolvency proceedings as triggering an interim moratorium and leaving the plaintiff to pursue its remedy by filing a claim in the collective statutory process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. In these circumstances, the discontinuance of the suit was regarded as materially analogous to a settlement for the purpose of refund. The Court adopted a liberal construction of Section 16 of the Court-Fees Act, 1870, consistent with its beneficial object of permitting refund where disputes are effectively resolved outside the ordinary suit process.

Conclusion: Refund of the court fee was held to be admissible and the application was allowed.

---