38.6c New Delhi, India, Saturday, August 02, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Litigant Entitled To 100% Refund Of Court Fees If Case Settled By Lok Adalat: Bombay HC [Read Judgment]

By LawStreet News Network      12 April, 2019 12:00 AM      0 Comments

The Bombay High Court by a judgment dated April 2, 2019, has clarified that a litigant who settles a suit before Lok Adalat held under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, is entitled to 100% refund of court fees paid.

A Bench comprising of Justices A.S. Oka and M.S. Sankelcha held that Section 16 of the Central Court Fees Act stands incorporated in sub-Section (1) of the Section 21 of the said Act of 1987 and, therefore, when a civil suit is referred to a Lok Adalat which ends with an Award of the Lok Adalat, the plaintiff is entitled to 100% refund of Court fees paid in the said suit. Thus, a defendant who files a counter claim in the suit is entitled to 100% refund of the Court fees paid on a counter claim which is settled before a Lok Adalat.

In this case, a suit was placed before the Lok Adalat which was earlier filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Malshiras, District Solapur. The suit was disposed of in terms of the compromise by the Lok Adalat and an award was made.

Thereafter, an application was made by the petitioner before the Trial Judge for refund of the entire amount of court fees of Rs. 3 lakhs paid on the suit. The Trial Judge passed an order allowing the full refund, relying on Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

However, a District Judge subsequently directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2.25 lakh with the court as the petitioner was only entitled to refund of 25% of the court fee paid under the Maharastra Court Fees Act, 1959. Aggrieved by the said communication, the petitioner moved the Bombay High Court, which framed the legal question as follows:

Whether a litigant who settles a suit before Lok Adalat held under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short the said Act of 1987) is entitled to 100% refund of Court Fees paid?

The state contended that such litigants are only entitled a refund to the extent of 25%, in view of a May 2013 notification issued under Section 43 the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959. The Government Pleader argued that as far as payment and refund of court fees in the Civil Courts in Maharashtra is concerned, the Maharashtra Court Fees Act is a complete code by itself.

The Bombay High Court, however, rejected the contention and accepted the submission made by the petitioner that Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act read with Section 16 of the Central Court Fees Act was applicable.

Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act lays down that where a case has been settled by a Lok Adalat, the court fee paid should be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870.

Section 16 of the Central Court Fees Act, which deals with refund of court fees states:

Where the Court refers the parties to the suit to any one of the mode of settlement of dispute[including by means of a Lok Adalat] referred to in section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), the plaintiff shall be entitled to a certificate from the Court authorising him to receive back from the collector, the full amount of the fee paid in respect of such plaint.

Taking into consideration these provisions, the court observed that on the point in issue the Central Court Fees Act and not the Maharashtra Court Fees Act would apply.

Accordingly, the court stated that On plain reading of Section 21, the provisions of the Central Court Fees Act relating to refund of Court fees[Section 16] stand incorporated in Section 21The effect of such incorporation is that the provisions of Section 16 of the Central Court Fees Act stand incorporated in sub Section (1) of Section 21 and Section 16 has now become a part of sub Section (1) of Section 21. As pointed out earlier, Section 16 is applicable when a suit referred by the Court to one of the three modes of settlement under Section 89 of the CPC, which includes Lok Adalat, is settled. Thus, it is crystal clear that once there is a settlement of a suit before the Lok Adalat, by virtue of incorporation of the provisions of Section 16 of the Central Court Fees Act into sub Section (1) of Section 21, the plaintiff in a suit settled before the Lok Adalat by an Award of a Lok Adalat, will be entitled to 100% refund of Court fees.

[Read Judgment]



Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

sc-to-first-consider-maintainability-of-review-against-2022-judgment-on-eds-powers-under-pmla
Trending Judiciary
SC to first consider maintainability of review against 2022 judgment on ED's powers under PMLA

SC to first decide if review pleas on ED powers under PMLA are maintainable; hearing on Karti Chidambaram’s plea set for August 6.

01 August, 2025 10:58 AM
sc-recalls-may-2-judgment-scrapping-jsw-steels-resolution-plan-for-bhushan-power-and-steel-ltd
Trending Business
SC recalls May 2 judgment scrapping JSW Steel's resolution plan for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd

SC recalls its May 2 verdict cancelling JSW Steel’s ₹19,300 Cr resolution plan for Bhushan Power; matter to be heard afresh on August 7.

01 August, 2025 11:13 AM

TOP STORIES

sc-questions-justice-varma-over-failure-to-challenge-validity-of-in-house-inquiry-panel
Trending Judiciary
SC questions Justice Varma over failure to challenge validity of in-house inquiry panel

SC questions Justice Varma for not challenging in-house probe panel earlier despite cash haul case; asks why he joined inquiry if he found it flawed.

28 July, 2025 02:27 PM
timelines-for-governor-prez-to-clear-bills-kerala-asks-sc-to-return-presidential-reference-unanswered
Trending Executive
Timelines for Governor, Prez to clear Bills: Kerala asks SC to return presidential reference "unanswered"

Kerala urges SC to return Presidential reference on bill clearance timelines as “unmaintainable”, citing suppression of facts and settled SC rulings under Article 200.

28 July, 2025 02:38 PM
sc-refuses-to-stay-publication-of-draft-voters-list-in-bihar-on-aug-1
Trending Judiciary
SC refuses to stay publication of draft voters list in Bihar on Aug 1

SC declines stay on Bihar draft voter list; asks EC to consider Aadhaar, Voter ID for inclusion ahead of Assembly polls on August 1.

28 July, 2025 04:10 PM
why-so-many-students-dying-by-suicides-sc-asks-iit-kharagpur
Trending Judiciary
Why so many students dying by suicides, SC asks IIT Kharagpur

SC asks IIT Kharagpur why students are dying by suicide; raises concern amid rising campus deaths despite new mental health guidelines.

29 July, 2025 11:51 AM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email