Final Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Misc DJ No.: 73/25
Naresh Bansal v. Pankaj Bharti
07.02.2025
Present: Mr. Madhav Kumar, Advocate for the applicant/plaintiff.
Heard. This is an application made on behalf of the
applicant, who was the plaintiff in CS (COMM) No. 848/2024, under
section 16 of the Court-fees Act, 1870 for refund of court-fees paid in
the said CS (COMM) No. 848/2024 disposed off by this court on
28.11.2024.
Heard. Having drawn the attention of the court on the
record of CS (COMM) No. 848/2024, High Court of Judicature at
Madras, represented by its Registrar General v. M.C. Subramaniam and
others, copy of order dated 21.01.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Delhi
High Court in CS (COMM) No. 1448/2016 entiled M/s Ramesh Paper
Mart v. M/s Matrix Global Pvt. Ltd., copy of order dated 23.02.2024
passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CS(OS) 523/2023 entitled
Rohit Gupta and others v. Dinesh Kumar Gupta and others, copy of
order dated 26.7.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CS
(COMM) 98/2023 entitled V Guard Industries Ltd. v. M/s Mahavir
Home Appliances and another, copy of order dated 16.8.2023 passed by
the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 10035/2022 entitled Praveen
Contd...
-- 1 of 3 --
-2-
Kumar Aggarwal v. Union of India and another it is submitted by
counsel for the applicant that after institution of CS (COMM) No.
848/2024, the claim of the plaintiff was satisfied by way of an out of
court settlement between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is further
submitted by counsel for the applicant that on 28.11.2024, in the wake of
out of court settlement between the parties the suit was dismissed as
settled out of court, therefore, in view of the provisions of the Court-fees
Act, 1870 and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court the court fees paid by the plainitff on the
plaint may be refunded to the plaintiff.
I have given my thoughtful consideration given by counsel
for the applicant.
As per the record of CS (COMM) 848/2024, on 28.11.2024
after an out of court settlement effected between the parties, the said suit
was dismissed as settled out of court.
In Rohit Gupta’s case (supra), on the point of refund of the
court fees where the dispute between the parties settled otherwise than
the mode prescribed in section 16 of the Court-fees Act, 1870, the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court, inter alia, held as follows:
14. Regardless of whether or not any steps to that effect have been
taken by the GNCTD so far, in view of the observations of the
Supreme Court and of a Division Bench of this court as cited
Contd...
-- 2 of 3 --
-3-
above, this court is persuaded to accept the plaintiff's prayer; and it
is accordingly directed that the entire amount of the court fee paid
on the plaint shall be refunded to the plaintiff.
In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in M. C. Subramaniam’s case (supra) and the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Rohit Gupta’s case (supra), V Guard
Industries Ltd. case (supra), Praveen Kumar Aggarwal’s case (supra)
and M/s Ramesh Paper Mart’s case (supra), as the dispute between the
plaintiff and the defendant has settled out of court and on the basis of the
said settlement the suit has been disposed of by this court, therefore, the
application is allowed and a certificate be issued in favour of the
applicant authorizing him to receive back from the Collector, the full
amount of the fee paid in respect of the plaint filed in CS (COMM)
848/2024.
After compliance file be sent to records. File of CS
(COMM) 848/2024 be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR-1)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-05
Central/ THC/ Delhi/ 07.02.2025
-- 3 of 3 --