Madras High Court
(Amended As Per Order ... vs M/S.R.Krishnamurthy And Co on 14 July, 2023
C.S(Comm.Div.).No.121 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
C.S.(Comm.Div).No.121 of 2020
M/s.Teemage Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Rep.by its Manager, Legal,
Mr.G.B.Arun Jose,
having registered office at:
No.6/35, College Road,
1st Cross Street, Tirupur-641 602.
(Amended as per order dt-05.04.2022 in A.No.1377/2022).
...Plaintiff
Vs.
1.M/s.R.Krishnamurthy and Co.
Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. R.Krishnamurthy,
having registered office at:
T-1, 3rd Floor,
Crescent Court Apartment
Plot No.65 and 66, Varasidhi Vinayagar Koil Street,
Chinmayanagar Stage, Chennai-92.
Also having head office at,
Sapthamlika Apartments,
2-E, Front Block, # 283, old 188/B,
P.H Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-600010.
2. NBCC (INDIA) LTD.
A NAVRATNA GOVT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE NLC WORKS,
Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.
No.135, EVR Periyar Salai,
Poonamallee High Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai-600010 ...Defendants
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(Comm.Div.).No.121 of 2020
PRAYER: Plaint is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Madras High Court
Original Side Rules. read with Order VII Rule 1 read with Section 7 of
Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Division of
High Court Act 2015 praying for:-
(a) The Plaintiff seeks to direct the defendant to pay a sum of
Rs.4,95,54,169/- towards the principal amount of Rs.3,72,99,412/- and
Interest amount of Rs.1,22,54,756/- @ 21 per annum.
b) The Plaintiff is also seeking permanent injunction restraining the
1st and the 2nd defendants from obtaining the Structural Stability
Certificate from anyone except the Plaintiff herein after payment of the sum
of the amount
c) not prayed in prayer (a)
d) Directing the defendants to pay the Plaintiff the cost of this Suit.
For Plaintiff : M/s.G.Prabhu
For Defendants : M/s.A.Suresh Selvakumar [D.1]
Ex parte [D.2]
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(Comm.Div.).No.121 of 2020
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff and the 1st defendant have entered into a compromise
which has been reduced into writing in a Memorandum of Understanding
dated 10.07.2023. The 2nd defendant has been set ex parte. In addition to
the Memorandum of Understanding dated 10.06.2023, a Joint Memo of
Compromise has been entered into on 14.07.2023 which according to the
learned counsel is a repeat of the terms included in the Memorandum of
Understanding dated 10.06.2023. The Joint Compromise memo is signed by
the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and also by their respective counsels.
Both the Memorandum of Understanding dated 10.07.2023 and the Joint
Memo of Compromise dated 14.07.223 are taken on file.
2. Accordingly this Civil Suit is decreed in terms of the Joint Memo
of compromise dated 14.07.2023. The terms of the Joint Memo of
compromise signed by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant shall form part and
parcel of this judgment and decree.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(Comm.Div.).No.121 of 2020
3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in High Court of Judicature at Madras
vs. M.C.Subramaniam and others reported in (2021) 3 SCC 560 held that
in cases where the matter is settled out of court by private negotiation of
parties, the refund of court fee can be ordered. 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(Comm.Div.).No.121 of 2020
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 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 it in the plaint. No costs.
14.07.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
shr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(Comm.Div.).No.121 of 2020
P.T. ASHA, J,
shr
C.S.(Comm.Div).No.121 of 2020
14.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
