Madras High Court
Nirmal Kumar Maheswari vs Firoz A.Nadiadwala on 22 June, 2023
C.S.No.662 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
C.S.No.662 of 2018
Nirmal Kumar Maheswari ... Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Firoz A.Nadiadwala
Sole Proprietor
M/s.Base Industries Group
Plot No.20, “Barket”
Gulmohar Cross Road
No.5, J.V.P.D.Scheme
Mumbai 400 049.
2.M/s.Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited
represented by its Director
33-B, 1st and 2nd Floor
Olympia Platina
Sidco Industrial Estate
Guindy, Chennai 600 032.
3.Oyeeee Media Limited
represented by its Director
A201, 2nd Floor
New Link Road
Crystal Plaza
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.662 of 2018
Oshiwara, Andheri West
Mumbai 400 053.
4.Eros International Media Ltd
represented by its Director
901/902, Supreme Chambers
Off. Veera Desai Road
Andheri West
Mumbai 400 053. ...Defendants
Prayer: This Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side
Rules r/w Order VII Rule 1 of CPC, praying to pass the judgment and
decree:-
a) directing the defendants 1 to 4 jointly and severally to pay the
plaintiff a sum of Rs.10,40,62,500/- (Rupees Ten Crores Forty Lakhs Sixty
Two Thousand and Five Hundred Only) with further interest at the rate of
30% p.a., on Rs.5,50,00,000/- from the date of this plaint till date of
realization in full.
b) for costs of this suit;
For Plaintiff : Mr.S.Vasudevan
For Defendants : Mr.Rajavelu for D1
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.662 of 2018
ORDER
The learned counsel for the plaintiff and the first defendant filed a
Joint Compromise Memo dated 22.06.2023, wherein it is stated that the suit
claims have been settled out of Court in full. Therefore, the plaintiff wants to
withdraw the suit. The compromise memo is signed by the plaintiff and the
first defendant and the same is countersigned by the learned counsel for the
plaintiff and the first defendant, identifying their respective parties.
Therefore, this Court is inclined to record the compromise memo and dismiss
the suit as settled out of Court.
2. The learned counsel for the plaintiff seeking refund of the Court fee
on the ground that the matter is settled out of Court by the parties. He relied
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in High Court of Judicature at
Madras vs. M.C.Subramaniam and others reported in (2021) 3 SCC 560
for the proposition that even in case the matter is settled out of Court by
private negotiation of parties, they are entitled to 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 requiring judicial intervention are entitled to
get refund of the Court fee. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Apex
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.662 of 2018
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.662 of 2018
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 refund of the Court fee affixed
by them in the plaint. No costs.
22.06.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
dna
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.662 of 2018
S.SOUNTHAR , J.
dna
C.S.No.662 of 2018
22.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
