Madras High Court
Opg Energy Pvt. Ltd vs M/S.Precot Meridian Industries ... on 4 October, 2023
O.S.A.(CAD) No.13 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.10.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
O.S.A.(CAD) No.13 of 2022
OPG ENERGY PVT. LTD.
Presently at "Knowledge Tower,
4th Floor, New No.36,
Sanjeevarayanpettai,
Little Mount, Chennai 600015. ...appellant
Vs.
M/s.Precot Meridian Industries Ltd.,
SUPREM, PB 7161, Green Fields,
737, Puliakulam Road,
Coimbatore 641045. ...respondent
Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of
the Original Side Rules read with clause 15 of the Amended Letters Patent,
1865 and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and
Section 13 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and
Commercial Appellate Division of the High Courts Act, 2015 against the
judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in
OP.No.103 of 2016 dated 05.02.2021.
For Appellant : Mr.AR.Karthik Lakshmanan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1/5
O.S.A.(CAD) No.13 of 2022
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J]
The learned counsel for the appellant states before this Court that the
dispute between the parties have been amicably settled out of Court.
Therefore, he seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the appeal and
also to refund of the Court fees to the appellant in the light of the decision
of the Supreme Court in the case of the High Court of Judicature at
Madras, Rep. by its Registrar General vs. M.C.Subramaniam & others in
SLP(Civil) Nos.3063-3064 of 2021. In this regard, he has also made an
endorsement in the bundle and also filed a memo, dated 04.10.2023. The
relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as follows:
"19. 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 have 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 fee, 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 (supra), parties who have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.2/5
O.S.A.(CAD) No.13 of 2022
agreed to settle 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 reason why Section 69-A should only incentivize the
methods of out-of-court settlement stated in Section 89, CPC
and afford step-brotherly treatment to other methods availed of
by the parties.
Admittedly, there may be situations wherein the parties
have after the course of a long-drawn trial, or multiple
frivolous litigations, approached the Court seeking refund of
court fees in the guise of having settled their disputes. In such
cases, the Court may, having regard to the previous conduct of
the parties and the principles of equity, refuse to grant relief
under the relevant rules pertaining to court fees. However, we
do not find the present case as being of such nature.
......
21. Thus, in our view, the High Court was correct in
holding that Section 89 of the CPC and Section 69-A of the
1955 Act be interpreted liberally. In view of this broad
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.3/5
O.S.A.(CAD) No.13 of 2022
purposive construction, we affirm the High Court's conclusion,
and hold that Section 89 of CPC shall cover, and the benefit of
Section 69-A of the 1955 Act shall also extend to, all methods
of out-of-court dispute settlement between parties that the
Court subsequently finds to have been legally arrived at. This
would, thus, cover the present controversy, wherein a private
settlement was arrived at, and a memo to withdraw the appeal
was filed before the High Court. In such a case as well, the
appellant, i.e., Respondent No.1 herein would be entitled to
refund of court fee."
2. In view of the above submission, memo and the endorsement made
by the learned counsel for the appellant, this appeal is dismissed as
withdrawn as settled out of Court. The appellant is entitled to the refund of
Court fee of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). No costs.
[D.K.K., J] [P.D.B., J]
04.10.2023
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order: Yes/No
pvs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.4/5
O.S.A.(CAD) No.13 of 2022
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
and
P.DHANABAL, J.
pvs
O.S.A.(CAD) No.13 of 2022
04.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.5/5
