THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL versus M.C. SUBRAMANIAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2021] 1 S.C.R. 552 · Decided: 17-02-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
552
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
   [2021] 1 S.C.R. 552
552
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS REP. BY
ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL
v.
M.C. SUBRAMANIAM AND ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 3063-3064 of 2021)
FEBRUARY 17, 2021
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s.89 – Tamil Nadu Court Fees
and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 – s.69-A – Parties entering into a
private out of court settlement for resolving the controversy between
them outside the modes contemplated under s.89 and seeking
permission to withdraw suit and also refund of court fees – Refund
of court fees – Permissibility of – Held: The purpose of s.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 – Object of s.89 is to facilitate private
settlements, and enable lightening of the overcrowded docket of
the Indian judiciary – s.69-A of the Act, 1955 and s.89 CPC should
be interpreted liberally in a manner that would serve their object
and purpose – Construing them narrowly would lead to situation
wherein parties who settle the dispute through mediation centre or
other centres of alternative judicial settlement under s.89 would be
entitled to claim refund of their court fees whilst parties who settle
the disputes privately by themselves will be left without any means
to seek the refund – Differential treatment between two similarly
situated persons would constitute a violation of Art.14 of the
Constitution – Thus, s.89 of CPC shall cover, and the benefit of
s.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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
553
present controversy, wherein a private settlement was arrived at,
and a memo to withdraw the appeal was filed before the High Court.
Interpretation of statutes: Purposive interpretation – It is well-
settled that the Courts may, in order to avoid any difficulty or
injustice resulting from inadvertent ambiguity in the language of a
statute, mould the interpretation of the same so as to achieve the
true purpose of the enactment – This may include expanding the
scope of the relevant provisions to cover situations which are not
strictly encapsulated in the language used therein.
Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, the Court
HELD: 1. The provisions of Section 89 of CPC must be
understood in the backdrop of the longstanding proliferation of
litigation in the civil courts, which has placed undue burden on
the judicial system, forcing speedy justice to become a casualty.
As the Law Commission has observed in its 238th Report on
Amendment of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and
Allied Provisions, Section 89 has now made it incumbent on civil
courts to strive towards diverting civil disputes towards
alternative dispute resolution processes, and encourage their
settlement outside of court (Para 2.3). These observations make
the object and purpose of Section 89 crystal clear – to facilitate
private settlements, and enable lightening of the overcrowded
docket of the Indian judiciary. This purpose, being sacrosanct
and imperative for the effecting of timely justice in Indian courts,
also informs Section 69-A of the 1955 Act, which further
encourages settlements by providing for refund of court fee. This
overarching and beneficent object and purpose of the two
provisions must, therefore, inform this Court’s interpretation
thereof. [Para 12][560-B-E]
2. It is well-settled that the Courts may, in order to avoid
any difficulty or injustice resulting from inadvertent ambiguity in
the language of a statute, mould the interpretation of the same
so as to achieve the true purpose of the enactment. This may
include expanding the scope of the relevant provisions to cover
situations which are not strictly encapsulated in the language used
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS REP. v.
M.C. SUBRAMANIAM
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
554
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
therein. The narrow interpretation of Sect

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.