Dismissed¶18

Ramesh Kumar Garg v. M/S Shree Murugan Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC5 May 2026CS(COMM)/194/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal and dismissal-as-withdrawn of a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 194/2021) after defendant company's liquidation; settlement of Rs.1,41,79,855 received from Official Liquidator; refund of court fee under substituted Section 16, Court Fees Act, 1870 (via Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2026; Section 16A omitted); certificate for full court-fee refund without ADR; money decree of Rs.4,85,89,649 sought; sine die adjournment; Delhi High Court, Justice Vikas Mahajan, decided 05.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

Certificate from the Registry for refund of the full court fee affixed on the plaint; suit dismissed as withdrawn. ¶18

Ramesh Kumar Garg Vs M/S Shree Murugan Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Certificate from the Registry for refund of the full court fee affixed on the plaint; suit dismissed as withdrawn.

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff, having accepted the full and final settlement amount tendered by the Official Liquidator, may withdraw the present suit. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The suit, along with the pending application, is dismissed as withdrawn, the plaintiff having elected to withdraw after accepting the full and final settlement amount from the Official Liquidator.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Under the newly substituted Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 as applicable to NCT of Delhi, where parties settle their dispute amicably at any stage and the suit is disposed of as settled/compromised by the Court, even without intervention of ADR, the plaintiff is entitled to a certificate authorising refund of the full amount of court fee paid on the plaint.

¶25

Key takeaways

Having regard to the plaintiff's acceptance of the amount tendered by the Official Liquidator and his withdrawal of the suit in terms thereof, the Court held the plaintiff entitled to refund of the full court fees affixed on the plaint, finding merit in counsel's submission that the suit be treated as settled.ratio¶26
The Registry of the Court was directed to issue a certificate to the plaintiff for refund of full court fees.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Vikas Mahajan, J.), order dated 05.05.2026 in CS(COMM) 194/2021 & I.A. 852/2022. The suit sought a money decree of Rs.4,85,89,649/- with interest against the defendant company. During pendency the defendant went into liquidation, the suit stood adjourned sine die, and the plaintiff, having made his claim before the Official Liquidator, received and accepted Rs.1,41,79,855/- as full and final settlement by cheque under letter dated 04.08.2023. Counsel accordingly withdrew the suit, which was dismissed as withdrawn together with the pending application. Noting the Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2026 (Delhi Gazette dated 06.03.2026), whereby Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 was substituted and Section 16A omitted — the substituted provision entitling a plaintiff whose suit is disposed of as settled/compromised, even without ADR intervention, to a certificate for refund of the full court fee paid — the Court held the plaintiff entitled to refund of the full court fees affixed on the plaint and directed the Registry to issue the certificate.

¶1

$~12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 194/2021 & I.A. 852/2022

¶4

RAMESH KUMAR GARG .....Plaintiff

¶5

Through: Mr. Sumit Rana, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

M/S SHREE MURUGAN FLOUR MILLS PVT LTD....Defendant Through:

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 05.05.2026

¶12

Mr. Sumit Rana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submits that the present suit has been filed praying for money decree in the sum of Rs.4,85,89,649/- along with interest, against the defendant.

¶13

He submits that during pendency of the present suit, the defendant/company went into liquidation and the present suit was adjourned sine die. He submits that the plaintiff also made his claim before the Official Liquidator.

¶14

He submits that against the said claim, the plaintiff has received the full and final settlement amount of Rs.1,41,79,855/- from the Official Liquidator by way of cheque under the cover of letter dated 04.08.2023, which has been accepted by the plaintiff.

¶15

He submits that after having accepted the said amount, the plaintiff is satisfied and there is otherwise, no other remedy available to pursue his claim. Accordingly, Mr. Rana seeks to withdraw the present suit.

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 12/05/2026 at 11:55:26

¶18

The suit, along with pending application, is therefore dismissed as withdrawn.

¶19

At this stage, Mr. Rana submits that since the plaintiff has accepted the claim amount as tendered by the Official Liquidator appointed with regard to the defendant/company, the present suit may be treated as having settled and the Court fee affixed on the plaint be refunded. This Court finds merit in the submission of Mr. Rana.

¶20

It is noted that the Government of NCT of Delhi has issued a notification published in the Delhi Gazette dated 06.03.2026 vide notification no. F. 14 (105)/LA-2026/ jtsecylaw /359-368 titled “The Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2026” , whereby Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 has been substituted and Section 16A has been omitted. The substituted Section 16, as applicable to the National Capital Territory of Delhi, reads as under:

¶21

“Section 16 – Refund of Fee:- Where the parties to a suit or appeal, at any stage of such suit or appeal, settle their dispute amicably, with or without the intervention of the Court and with or without invoking any of the modes of settlement of dispute, referred to in section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and the said suit including Counter-claim, if any, or appeal is disposed of as settled/compromised by the court, the plaintiff/Counter-claimant shall be entitled to a certificate from the Court authorizing him to receive back from the collector/competent officer, the full amount of fee, paid in respect of such plaint/counter claim.”

¶22

As per Gazette notification dated 06.03.2026, the newly substituted Section 16 has come into force w.e.f. 06.03.2026. Reading of newly substituted Section 16 stipulates that where parties to a suit settle their dispute amicably at any stage of the proceedings and the suit is disposed of

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 12/05/2026 at 11:55:26

¶25

as settled/compromised by the Court, even without intervention of ADR, the plaintiff shall be entitled to a certificate from the Court authorizing him to receive back from the Collector/competent officer the full amount of court fee paid in respect of the plaint.

¶26

Having regard to the fact that the plaintiff has accepted the amount tendered to him by the Official Liquidator and has withdrawn the suit in terms thereof, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to refund of full court fees affixed on the plaint.

¶27

Accordingly, the Registry of this Court is directed to issue a certificate to the plaintiff for refund of full court fees.

¶28

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶29

MAY 5, 2026 aj

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

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 12/05/2026 at 11:55:26

Ramesh Kumar Garg v. M/S Shree Murugan Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar Garg v. M/S Shree Murugan Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. & Anr. Vs Nukind Healthcare P Ltd. & Ors.

Karmyogi Hotels and Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr Prashant Garg and Ors.

Zubair Ahmed Proprietor of M/S Alpha Bioceuticals Vs Musheer Ahmed Proprietor of M/S Lucknow Medicine Company

Xx and Anr. Vs Yy

Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited Vs Wockhardt Limited and Anr.

Hermes International & Anr. Vs Neofusion Commerce through Sole Proprietor Mr. Rishabh Jain & Anr.

Excel Pack Pvt. Ltd. Vs Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd. & Ors.

National Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. Vs Chetak Logistics Limited

Raj Kumar Jain Vs M/S Shree Balaji Enterprisies and Anr.

Dr Rashmi Saluja Vs Religare Enterprises Limited

Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited Vs Rahul Lohiya & Anr.

Girish Dixit Vs Sagar Sharma & Anr.

Cnh Industrial Capital I(Ndia) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sk Sanarul & Anr.

Axis Finance Limited Vs Mr. Prabhatranjan Shambhu Prasad