Madras High Court
Vijay Kothari vs Kaushalyarani on 24 April, 2023
C.S.(Comm.Div).No.90 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.04.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
C.S.(Comm.Div).No.90 of 2023
and
A.No.2441 of 2023
and
OA.No.340 of 2023
Vijay Kothari ... Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Kaushalyarani
2.M/s.Qube Cinema Technologies Private Limited
No.42, Dr.Ranga Road
Mylapore
Chennai 600 004.
3.M/s.UFO Moviez India Limited
No.178/3&4, Kumaran Colony Main Road
Kumaran Colony, Vadapalani
Chennai 600 026.
4.M/s.Prasad Xtreme Digital Cinema Network Pvt.Ltd
No.58, Arunachalam Road
Saligramam
Chennai 600 093. ...Defendants
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div).No.90 of 2023
Prayer: This Civil Suit is filed under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, r/w Order IV, Rule 1 of the Madras High Court O.S.Rules Section
7 of the Commercial Courts Act No.04 of 2016, praying to pass the judgment
and decree:-
(i) for directing the first defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of
Rs.1,03,20,000/- together with further interest at 24% p.a., Principal amount
Rs.60,00,000/- from the date of plaint till the date of realisation;
(ii) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their
agents servants, distributors or anybody claiming through or under them from
in any manner releasing, distributing or exploiting the film titled
“TAMILARASAN” (Tamil, Colour) anywhere in the world without first
settling the dues of the plaintiff as per the letter of undertaking dated
20.04.2020 executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff;
(iii) directing the defendants to pay the costs of the suit; and
For Plaintiff : Mr.A.Chidambaram
For Defendants : Mr.E.Hariharan
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div).No.90 of 2023
ORDER
The learned counsel for the plaintiff has filed a memo stating that
the dispute in the suit has been settled between the plaintiff and the first
respondent. Hence, the suit may be dismissed as withdrawn. The Memo filed
by the learned counsel for the plaintiff dated 24.04.2023 is recorded.
2. In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as withdrawn.
3. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in High
Court of Judicature at Madras vs. M.C.Subramaniam and others reported
in (2021) 3 SCC 560, even in case the matter is settled out of Court by
parties, they are entitled to get refund of the Court fee. In the said decision,
the Hon'ble Apex Court said that parties who have agreed to settle their
dispute without judicial intervention are entitled to get refund of the Court fee.
The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court is as follows:
“23. We find ourselves in agreement with the approach
taken by the High Courts in the decisions stated supra. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div).No.90 of 2023
purpose of Section 69-A is to reward parties who chosen to
withdraw their litigations in favour of more conciliatory dispute
settlement mechanisms, thus saving the time and resources of the
Court, by enabling them to claim refund of the Court fees
deposited by them. Such refund of Court, though it may not be
connected to the substance of the dispute between the parties, is
certainly an ancillary economic incentive for pushing them
towards exploring alternative methods of dispute settlement. As
the Karnataka High Court has rightly observed in Kamalamma
the parties who have agreed to settled their disputes without
requiring judicial intervention under Section 89 CPC are even
more deserving of this benefit. This is because by choosing to
resolve their claims themselves, they have saved the state of the
logistical hassle of arranging for a third-party institution to
settle the dispute. Though arbitration and mediation are
certainly salutary dispute resolution mechanisms, we also find
that the importance of private amicable negotiation between the
parties cannot be understated. In our view, there is no justifiable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div).No.90 of 2023
reason why Section 69-A should only incentivise the methods of
out-of-Court settlement stated in Section 89 CPC and afford
step-brotherly treatment to other methods availed by the parties.
”
4. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
above said decision, the plaintiff is entitled to get refund of the Court fee
affixed by him in the plaint.
5. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
24.04.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
dna
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div).No.90 of 2023
S.SOUNTHAR , J.
dna
C.S.(Comm.Div).No.90 of 2023
and
A.No.2441 of 2023
and
OA.No.340 of 2023
24.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
