LexSANJEEVKUMAR HARAKCHAND KANKARIYA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 866 : 2024 INSC 1004 Sanjeevkumar Harakchand Kankariya v. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 14742 of 2024) 19 December 2024 [C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether in view of the inconsistency between the Court Fees Act, 1870 and Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959, if any, would the appellant be entitled to a complete refund of court fees per the former, since it is a Central legislation. Headnotes† Court Fees Act, 1870 – Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.89 – Settlement of disputes outside the Court – Court fees – Complete refund of – Entitlement – Civil dispute filed by the appellant which was resolved through mediation u/s.89 CPC – Trial court allowed refund of court fees only to the extent of 50% – Appellant filed writ petition seeking complete refund of court fees on the ground that the civil court erred by allowing refund only to the extent of 50% in view s.16 of the CFA, 1870; that as per s.21 of the LSA Act,1987 when a matter is referred to Lok Adalat u/s.20(1) of the said Act and a compromise or settlement is arrived, the court fee paid in such a matter shall also be refunded in accordance with CFA, 1870; that the said Act being a Central legislation, would override the State enactment – High Court rejected the petition – Correctness: Held: Entry 11A List III cannot govern the refund of court fees when a matter is settled by methods of alternate dispute resolution, in the face of Entry 3 List II simply by the use of the words “administration of justice” in the former – Reference to CFA, 1870 in respect of refund of court fees when the matter is settled by way of an award of Lok Adalat does not mean that the same shall be extended to the settlement of dispute by mediation for the simple reason that * Author [2024] 12 S.C.R. 867 Sanjeevkumar Harakchand Kankariya v. Union of India & Ors. Lok Adalat and mediation are two distinct methods and cannot be equated – High Court made suggestion to the State legislature that the differences in the court fees in Lok Adalat, vis-à-vis, the forms of ADR should be done away to promote the adaptation of such methods of dispute resolution among the public – State legislature carried out such an amendment to the MCFA, 1959 and s.16A has been introduced therein – Effect would be that for the time when the amendment to the MCFA, 1959 granting partial or complete refund, as the case may be, in accordance with s.43 as amended, the persons whose matters were settled by way of ADR would not be entitled to 100% refund – Any matter settled under the processes mentioned in s.89 CPC after the coming into force of the said amendment, such parties to receive refund of court fees in its entirety – Total amount of court fees paid by the appellant, in respect of the refund of which the matter has travelled up to this Court was approximately Rs. 5 lakhs – Considering the fact that the original dispute was settled amicably and that the amount of court fees involved is not excessive, the same can be refunded to him. [Paras 20-24] Case Law Cited Pushpabai Shankerlal Sura v. The Official Liquidator, Sholapur Oil Mills Ltd. 1968 SCC OnLine Bom 62; Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (II) v. Union of India [2005] Supp. 1 SCR 929 : (2005) 6 SCC 344; High Court of Madras v. MC Subramaniam [2021] 1 SCR 552 : (2021) 3 SCC 560; Rangathan v. In the Court of District Judge, Trichirapalli; K.S Periyaswamy v. State of Karnataka 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3032; Maharishi Shankarrao Mohite-Patil Sahakar Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 628; Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra [2011] 3 SCR 1 : (2011) 3 SCC 1; Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore [1958] 1 SCR 895 : AIR 1958 SC 255; Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal [1962] Supp. 3 SCR 1 : AIR 1962 SC 1044; J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving v. State of U.P. [1961] 3 SCR 185 : AIR 1961 SC 1170; British Airways PLC v. Union of India [2001] Supp. 5 SCR 152 : (2002) 2 SCC 96; Jamshed N. Guzdar v. State of Maharashtra [2005] 1 SCR 223 : (2005) 2 SCC 591; In Re The Special Courts Bill, 1978 [1979] 2 SCR 476 : (1979) 1 SCC 380; State of T.N. v. G.N. Venkataswamy [1994] Supp. 1 SCR 322 : (1994) 5 SCC 314; M. Karunanidhi v. Union 868 [2024] 12 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports of India [1979] 3 SCR 254 : (1979) 3 SCC 431; Ujagar Prints (II) v. Union of India [1989] 1 S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.