The Delhi HC was dealing with the petition filed by the plaintiff and defendant jointly for refund of entire Court fees.
Brief Facts:
Previous Petition was filed by the plaintiffs under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC seeking impleadment of Mr.Ranjit Bansali, proprietor of Oswal Electricals as defendant to the present suit.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that at the time of filing the present suit, the plaintiffs were under the bona fide impression that the defendant No. 1 was operating from the premises located at Delhi. However, during the execution of the Local Commission, the plaintiffs came to know that the said premise was controlled and operated by the proposed defendant no.2 and not by defendant no.1.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that now no relief regarding defendant No.1 is sought and thereby, his name be deleted from the Array of Parties mentioned in the Amended Memo of Parties. The application was allowed. Defendant No.1 is deleted from the Array of Parties and Mr.Ranjit Bansali, proprietor of Oswal Electricals is impleaded as defendant in the present suit.
The petition has been filed by the plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringement of trademarks, copyright, passing off, damages, acts of unfair competition, dilution, misrepresentation, delivery up, rendition of accounts, etc. The Court was informed that the plaintiffs and defendant Ranjit Bansali have amicably resolved their disputes out of court.
Petitioner’s Contention:
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the subject matter of the suit stands amicably resolved, therefore, in terms of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, the entire court fees be refunded to the plaintiffs.
HC’s observations:
After hearing both the sides the Court found that the settlement reached between the parties is valid and lawful.
The Court relied upon the case of NutanBatra Vs. M/s. Buniyaad Associates in which while allowing an appeal against the order of refusal of refund of entire court fee in a suit, the Court had dealt with the applicability provisions of Sections 16 and 16A of the Act and Section 89 of the CPC.
The Court also rely upon the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, in which the SC observed that “If Section 89 is to be read and required to be implemented in its literal sense, it will be a trial Judge's nightmare. It puts the cart before the horse and lays down an impractical, if not impossible, procedure in subsection (1). It has mixed up the definitions in sub-section”
HC held:
The Court after hearing submissions and evaluating various case laws allowed the present joint application filed by the plaintiffs and defendant. The Court stated that the parties shall be bound by the terms of settlement reached between them.
The Court held that “Applying the ration of law laid down in the afore-noted decisions, this Court finds that the parties to the present suit have arrived at an amicable settlement out of the court and the said settlement is on record, which is valid and lawful. Therefore, plaintiffs are entitled to refund of 50% Court fees.”
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait
Case Title: Devendra Kumar Jain & Anr. v. Sanjeev Goel
Case Details: CS(COMM) 446/2021& I.As.11969/2021 & 11970/2021
Picture Source :
