Disposed

Catalyst Trusteeship Limited v. Charms India Private Limited and Ors.

Delhi HC3 May 2024CS(COMM)/752/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suit decreed in terms of a settlement under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC; defendants to pay Rs. 182 crores over 49 months per settlement schedule. On refund of court fee, the court relied on the Supreme Court's observation in M.C. Subramaniam (2021) 3 SCC 560 that full court-fee refund extends to all methods of out-of-court settlement, and on the Division Bench order noting proposed repeal of Section 16A of the Court-fees Act as applicable to Delhi, and directed refund of the entire court fee paid on the plaint.

What did the court decide?

Consent decree drawn in terms of Settlement Letter dated 27.03.2024; entire court fee paid on the plaint directed to be refunded within six weeks.

Catalyst Trusteeship Limited Vs Charms India… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 752/2023 & I.A. 20768/2023 CATALYST TRUSTEESHIP LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. K.K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajiv Bakshi, Ms. Bhanita Patowary and Mr. Ram Pravesh Rai, Advocates.

¶4

versus

¶5

CHARMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Ms. Gurkamal Hora Arora, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R % 03.05.2024 I.A. 9918/2024

¶6

By way of the joint application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the parties seek a consent decree in terms of the settlement arrived at between them vide Settlement Letter dated 27.03.2024.

¶7

The text of the settlement letter, which comprises the in-principle approval to the settlement proposal, have been set-out in para 3 of the application. The essential aspects of the settlement are that the defendants have agreed to pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 182 crores, as per clause D of the terms and conditions of settlement in accordance with the schedule of payment as set-out in clause H, which details the amounts to be paid over a period of 49 months.

¶8

Upon being queried, learned counsel for all parties confirm that the in-principle approval to the terms of settlement has since been confirmed; and parties have settled their inter-se disputes fully and

¶9

CS(COMM) 752/2023

¶10

Page 1 of 4

¶11

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 11:42:08

¶12

finally in terms of Settlement Letter dated 27.03.2024; and agree to remain bound by the terms of the settlement.

¶13

In this backdrop, they seek a consent decree incorporating the terms of settlement as contained in Settlement Letter dated 27.03.2024.

¶14

The court has perused the terms of the settlement.

¶15

The court is of the view that the parties have settled their disputes through a lawful agreement; and there is no reason why the settlement should not be accepted.

¶16

The application is accordingly allowed.

¶17

The terms of settlement contained in Settlement Letter dated 27.03.2024, as also extracted in para 3 of the joint application, are taken on record.

¶18

It is further directed that parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement; and in particular, the defendant shall honour the schedule of payment comprised in the settlement.

¶19

The application is disposed-of.

¶20

CS(COMM) 752/2023

¶21

In view of the settlement arrived at as above, the suit stands decreed in terms of the settlement comprised in Settlement Letter dated 27.03.2024.

¶22

The Registry is directed to draw-up a decree-sheet, comprising therein the terms of settlement.

¶23

The suit stands decreed and disposed-of accordingly.

¶24

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of.

¶25

Mr. K.K. Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff seeks refund of the full court fee affixed on the plaint. Senior counsel

CS(COMM) 752/2023

Page 2 of 4

submits that the matter was at the nascent stage of completion of pleadings; and therefore the court-fee may be refunded in the entirety.

¶30

1. To answer the query that section 16A of the Court-fees Act, 1870 as applicable to Delhi, provides for refund of only half of the court fee if the matter is settled privately among the parties without intervention of the court or any alternate dispute resolution mechanism, counsel draws attention to other orders of this Bench, where similar relief has been granted.

¶31

Attention in this behalf is drawn to para 26 of High Court of Judicature at Madras vs. M.C. Subramanium &Anr.¹ , where the Supreme Court has opined, even though in the context of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act 1955, that on a broad and purposive construction of section 89 of the CPC, the provision for refund of the entire court fee shall also extend to all methods of outof-court dispute settlement between parties and not be limited to settlement arrived at through mediation.

¶32

It is also noticed that in order dated 16.08.2023 made by a Division Bench of this court in W.P.(C) No. 10235/2022 titled Praveen Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of India and Anr. , the Division Bench had recorded a statement made by learned counsel appearing for the Government of NCT of Delhi (‘GNCTD’), that in terms of a communication dated 14.08.2023 received from GNCTD, the department was contemplating necessary steps for repeal of Section 16A of the Court-fees Act as applicable to Delhi.

¶33

1 (2021) 3 SCC 560

CS(COMM) 752/2023

Page 3 of 4

It is seen, that as recorded in the Division Bench order, the decision of the GNCTD proceeded on their perception that section 16A was creating an arbitrary distinction between persons who seek refund of court fee under section 16 and those who seek refund under section 16A of the Court Fee Act. By the said order, the Division Bench had disposed-of the public interest litigation with the direction to the GNCTD to take appropriate consequential steps within a period of 04 months from that date i.e. 16.08.2023.

¶38

Regardless of whether or not any steps to that effect have been taken by the GNCTD so far, in view of the observations of the Supreme Court and of a Division Bench of this court as cited above, this court is persuaded to accept the request made on behalf of the plaintiff; and it is accordingly directed that the entire amount of the court fee paid on the plaint shall be refunded to the plaintiff.

¶39

The Registry is directed to draw-up the requisite certificate for refund of the entire court fee, within 06 weeks from today.

¶40

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

¶41

MAY 3, 2024 V.Rawat

¶42

CS(COMM) 752/2023

¶43

Page 4 of 4

¶44

Catalyst Trusteeship Limited v. Charms India Private Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Catalyst Trusteeship Limited v. Charms India Private Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tata Sons Private Limited Vs Deepak Kumar & Anr.

Glaxo Group Limited Vs Dermazone Pharmaceuticals Private Limited

Austin Nichols and Co. Vs Arvind Behl

Pfizer Products, Inc. Vs Renovision Exports Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Ocm Singapore Njord Holdings Hardrada Pte Ltd. & Anr. Vs Mr. Prerit Goel & Ors.

Dabur India Limited Vs Ashok Kumar and Others

Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs John Doe and Others

Exxon Mobil Corporation Vs M/S Bike Zone / Siddhivinayak Autoline & Ors.

Ofb Tech Private Limited Vs Indo-Bhutan Construction Solutions Private Limited & Ors.

Arcadis Professional Services Inc. Vs M/S Dsc Limited & Anr.

Rcc Developers Ltd. Vs Northern Railways

Mukund Gupta Vs Sourabh Chhabra

Shah International School Vs Directorate of Education

M/S Lease Plan India Private Limited Vs M/S Nimbus Motors Private Limited