Final Order 18

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS (Comm.) No.137/2023
Alka Confectionery (P) Ltd. V/s Anwar Khan & Anr.
CNR No.DLNW010016052023
25.01.2024
Present: Shri Kunal Khanna, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff alongwith
Shri Anil Kumar Gera, Director/Authorized Signatory of
plaintiff company in person.
Shri Himanshu Anand, Ld. Counsel for both the defendants
alongwith defendant No.1/Anwar Khan (proprietor of Humdum
Food Products Grih Udyog) and defendant No.2/Navid Khan
(proprietor of Jhu Food By Hjumdum) in person.
Today fresh Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of both the
defendants, same is taken on record.
Matter is listed for consideration on following three applications:
(i) Application U/o XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, filed on behalf of plaintiff;
(ii) Objections to the report of learned Local Commissoner; and
(iii) Application U/o VI Rule 17 CPC, filed by the defendants, inter alia
seeking amendment in the written statement.
At this stage, it is jointly submitted by learned counsels for the
parties that present matter stood amicably settled between the parties and
accordingly a detailed joint application U/o XXIII Rule 3 CPC r/w Section 151
CPC has been moved in this regard.
Heard. Application perused.
The said application is signed and duly accompanied by the
respective Affidavits of all the parties.
Separately, statement(s) of Shri Anil Kumar Gera, Director/
authorized signatory of plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 in this regard have
been recorded, whereby the joint application moved by the parties U/o XXIII
Rule 3 CPC, dated 25.01.2024 has been proved on record as Ex.PB.
Contd...p/2…
-- 1 of 3 --
- 2 - CS (Comm.) No.137/2023
On the basis of statements of all the parties recorded in Court today
as well as in terms of Ex.PB, instant matter is hereby disposed off as having
been amicably settled/compromised. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
Joint application moved by the parties U/o XXIII Rule 3 CPC, dated
25.01.2024 (Ex.PB) shall form part of the Decree Sheet. Both the parties shall
remain bound by the terms and conditions contained in Ex.PB.
Needless to say, it is hereby clarified that in case the defendants
make any breach of the terms and conditions contained in Ex.PB, plaintiff shall
be at liberty to avail the remedies available to it as per law against the
defendants.
At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiff has prayed for
refund of requisite Court fees in terms of Section 16-A of Court Fees (Delhi
Amendment) Act, 2010.
Heard.
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case reported as, “CS (OS)
No.2158/1997”, titled as, “Steel Authority of India Limited V/s M/s
Kailashpati Steel India Limited & Ors.” (DOD: 27.08.2021) has been
pleased to observe as under:
xxxxx
2.The Supreme Court in High Court of Judicature at
Madras v. M.C. Subramaniam and Others,(2021) 3
SCC 560 has held that court fee is refundable even if
the parties have arrived at a settlement outside the
court. In the light of the aforesaid decision of the
Supreme Court and the decision of this court in J.K.
Forgings v. Essar Construction India Limited, 2009
(113) DRJ 612, followed in Inderjeet Kaur Raina v.
Harvinder Kaur Anand, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6557,
the request of learned counsel for the plaintiffs is
allowed.
Contd...p/3...
-- 2 of 3 --
- 3 - CS (Comm.) No.137/2023
3.For the reasons stated in the application and in
terms of Section 16A of the Court Fees Act, 1870 as
applicable to Delhi, 50% of the court fee deposited by
the plaintiffs be refunded to it in view of the
settlement that the parties have arrived at.
xxxxx
In view of the above and considering the fact that settlement in the
matter between the parties have been arrived at outside Court, plaintiff is held
entitled to refund of 50% of Court Fees in terms of Section 16A of Court Fees
(Delhi Amendment) Act, 2010, as applicable to Delhi.
No further orders are required to be passed in the matter. File be
consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
Dasti.
(Vinod Yadav)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
North-West/Rohini Courts/25.01.2024
-- 3 of 3 --