Plaintiff sought refund of court fee after suit was dismissed due to Section 8 arbitration reference. Court held Section 16-A applies only to settlement dismissals and Section 89 CPC applies only to consensual arbitration referrals, thus no refund is due.
Application for refund of court fee dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~19
K V PRATEEK ENTERPRISES ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate.
versus
IL&FS ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED ..... Defendant Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA O R D E R % 07.12.2017
I.A. No.14513/2017 (under Section 16 of the Court-fees Act by plaintiff)
the suit. It is argued that the suit has been referred to arbitration in terms of the order dated 11.5.2017, and therefore, plaintiff be refunded the court fee paid in the suit.
account of allowing of an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 which is filed by the defendant.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
DECEMBER 07, 2017 Ne
3 issues framed by the court
Whether plaintiff is entitled to refund of court fee paid when suit dismissed under Section 8 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act on its own motion
Whether Section 16-A of Court-fees Act applies to dismissal of suit via Section 8 arbitration application
Whether Section 89 CPC applies where suit dismissed by allowing defendant's Section 8 application without party consent
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Valmikaji Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
A suit of a commercial nature above the specified value, governed by the Commercial Courts Act 2015.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
