TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtinent to mention that a Notification has been issued by the GNCTD permitting refund of court fee even in cases wherein the Plaintiff withdraws the Suit on the basis of settlement, a scenario covered under Order XXIII Rule 1(4) of the CPC. 15. The question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the facts of the present case indicate that the parties have settled their lis or not. In this case, strictly speaking, there is no settlement arrived at between the parties. However, the proceedings under the IBC were initiated against the Defendant and the Plaintiff submitted its claims before the Resolution Professional and has agreed to the amount that has been decided to be paid under the settlement process in the Resolution Plan to the Plaintiff herein. The net effect is that the Plaintiff has settled for an amount in order to bring a quietus to its claims and since the Plaintiff has agreed to accept the said amount, the ingredients of settlement are attracted to the facts of this case. 16. In the opinion of this Court following observations of the Apex Court in High Court of Judicature at Madra through its Registrar General v. M.C. Subramaniam & Ors.,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment, or to some inconvenience or absurdity, hardship or injustice, presumably not intended, a construction may be put upon it which modifies the meaning of the words, and even the structure of the sentence. ... Where the main object and intention of a statute are clear, it must not be reduced to a nullity by the draftsman's unskilfulness or ignorance of the law, except in a case of necessity, or the absolute intractability of the language used."" 15. Therefore, it is well settled that the courts may, in order to avoid any difficulty or injustice resulting from inadvertent ambiguity in the language of a statute, mould the interpretation of the same so as to achieve the true purpose of the enactment. This may include expanding the scope of the relevant provisions to cover situations which are not strictly encapsulated in the language used therein. 16. This principle of statutory interpretation has been affirmed more recently in the decision in Shailesh Dhairyawan v. Mohan Balkrishna Lulla [Shailesh Dhairyawan v. Mohan Balkrishna Lulla, (2016) 3 SCC 619 : (2016) 2 SCC (Civ) 426] : (SCC p. 642, para 33) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1 AIR Kant R 279], wherein it was held as follows : (SCC OnLine Kar para 6). "6. Whether the parties to a suit or appeal or any other proceeding get their dispute settled amicably through arbitration, or meditation or conciliation in the Lok Adalat, by invoking provisions of Section 89 CPC or they get the same settled between themselves without the intervention of any Arbitrator/Mediator/Conciliators in Lok Adalat, etc., and without invoking the provision of Section 89 CPC, the fact remains that they get their dispute settled without the intervention of the Court. If they get their dispute settled by invoking Section 89 CPC, in that event the State may have to incur some expenditure but, if they get their dispute settled between themselves without the intervention of the Court or anyone else, such as arbitrator/mediator, etc., the State would not be incurring any expenditure. This being so, I am of the considered opinion that whether the parties to a litigation get their dispute settled by invoking Section 89 CPC or they get the same settled between themselves without invoking Section 89 CPC, the party paying court fees in respect thereof should be entitled to the refund ....