M/S Hdfc Bank Ltd., Vs the Registrar, City Civil Court — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2025)

M/S Hdfc Bank Ltd., Vs the Registrar, City Civil Court — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Refund of the Court Fee paid at the time of instituting the suit(s), directed to be made by the concerned Court; learned counsel Sri. T.P. Vivekananda permitted to file his vakalath within four weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether dismissal of a suit on account of a memo for withdrawal filed by the plaintiff entails automatic refund of court fee — in particular, whether refund is warranted where the suit is withdrawn because the concerned Court had no jurisdiction or competence to try it, notwithstanding Section 66 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.

Court's answer

Where the Court does not have competence (jurisdiction) to try a suit, the suit is preferred before it, and it is withdrawn on a memo raising the question of the concerned Court's jurisdiction or competence, refund of court fee is axiomatic; the Court expressly caveats that this cannot extend to all other cases where a suit is dismissed on a plain withdrawal memo filed by the plaintiff.

Ratio / Principle

Where the concerned Court did not have jurisdiction to try the suit and the suit was instituted and withdrawn on the question of jurisdiction, the order of the concerned Court or the Registry's office note refusing refund of court fee is, on the face of it, erroneous.

Key takeaways

The writ petitions succeed; the concerned Court is directed to refund the court fee that was paid at the time of instituting the suit, which now stands withdrawn.ratio¶233
The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi (directing 50% refund of court fee in certain circumstances), relied upon by respondent No.1, is distinguished: the issue therein concerned settlement under Section 89 CPC, whereas the subject petitions concern withdrawal of the suit for want of jurisdiction in the concerned Court.ratio¶229

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Article 227 (GM-CPC) writ petitions, High Court of Karnataka (M. Nagaprasanna J., 09.06.2025; NC: 2025:KHC:19840) — M/s HDFC Bank Ltd. (formerly HDFC Ltd., pre-amalgamation) challenged office notes dated 22.01.2025 of the Registry, City Civil Court, Bengaluru, refusing refund of court fee after the V Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge dismissed its money-recovery suits (O.S.Nos.3785, 3836 and 3739 of 2023) as 'not pressed' on memos withdrawing the suits — because, post-amalgamation (NCLT order dated 17.03.2023), the bank's debt-recovery claims were barred before the Civil Court and lay before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Sections 17/18 of the RDB Act, 1993; the Registry refused refund invoking Section 66 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (no refund on dismissal). Held, relying on Nutan Batra (Del HC), Dr. (Col.) Subhash Chandra Talwar (SC) and Narayana Murthy (Kar HC): where a suit is withdrawn on a memo on the ground of the court's lack of jurisdiction/competence, refund of court fee is axiomatic — with the caveat that this cannot extend to every dismissal on a plain withdrawal memo; the Registry's office note is facially erroneous; petitions allowed and refund directed. An unnamed Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court (50% refund in Section 89 CPC settlement scenarios) distinguished.

NC: 2025:KHC:19840 WP No. 13440 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13308 of 2025 WP No. 13361 of 2025

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 13440 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

C/W

WRIT PETITION NO. 13308 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) WRIT PETITION NO. 13361 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

IN WP No. 13440/2025

BETWEEN:

M/S.HDFC BANK LTD., (FORMERLY HDFC LTD. PRIOR TO AMALGAMATION), A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956.

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

HDFC BANK HOUSE, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, LOWER PAREL W, MUMBAI - 400 013.

ALSO HAVING OFFICE AT H.D.F.C. HOUSE, NO. 51, KASTURBA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

REPRESENTED BY MR. SHRIDHAR CHINNI

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19840 WP No. 13440 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13308 of 2025 WP No. 13361 of 2025

HC-KAR

SENIOR MANAGER, RETAIL PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. CHARU ATREY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VARUN S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE REGISTRAR, CITY CIVIL COURT, CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

MR. KOLAYIPOYIL SHAREEF, SON OF MR. AMMAD KOLAYIPOYIL, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT P.O. BOX NO.4264, DOHA, QATAR. HAVING PLACE OF WORK AT: AL WAHAAT TRADING CO., P.O. BOX NO.4264, CHOICE CENTRE, FLOOR NO.3, AL SAHAD,DOHA.

MRS. ARIFA SHAREEF, WIFE OF MR. KOLAYIPOYIL SHAREEF, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT P.O. BOX NO.4264, DOHA, QATAR.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

NC: 2025:KHC:19840 WP No. 13440 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13308 of 2025 WP No. 13361 of 2025

3 -

HC-KAR

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19^TH JUNE 2024 ANNEXURE – L PASSED BY TE LD. V ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 6^TH NOVEMBER 2023 UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 SEEKING REFUND OF THE COURT FEES IN O.S.NO.3785 OF 2023 ANNEXURE – J AND ETC.,

IN WP NO. 13308/2025

BETWEEN:

M/S. HDFC BANK LTD., (FORMERLY HDFC LTD. PRIOR TO AMALGAMATION)

A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT HDFC BANK HOUSE, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, LOWER PAREL W, MUMBAI - 400 013.

ALSO HAVING OFFICE AT H.D.F.C. HOUSE, NO.51, KASTURBA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

REPRESENTED BY MR. SHRIDHAR CHINNI,

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19840 WP No. 13440 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13308 of 2025 WP No. 13361 of 2025

HC-KAR

SENIOR MANAGER, RETAIL PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT

...PETITIONER

(BY SMT.CHARU ATREY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VARUN S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE REGISTRAR, CITY CIVIL COURT CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

MR. SANDEEP KANAMALA, SON OF MR. CHANDER PRAKASH KANAMALA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT 1615, WATERFORD, DR EDISON, NJ 08817-1921.

OZONE URBANA INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD,. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.38, ULSOOR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 042. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.T.P.VIVEKANANDDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) SETTING ASIDE THE

NC: 2025:KHC:19840 WP No. 13440 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13308 of 2025 WP No. 13361 of 2025

5 -

HC-KAR

ORDER DATED 06TH JUNE 2024 ANNEXURE - L PASSED BY THE LD. V. ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 7TH DECEMBER 2023 UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 SEEKING REFUND OF THE COURT FEES IN OS NO.3836 OF 2023 ANNEXURE – J AND ETC.,

IN WP NO. 13361/2025

M/S. HDFC BANK LTD., (FORMERLY HDFC LTD. PRIOR TO AMALGAMATION)

A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT HDFC BANK HOUSE, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, LOWER PAREL W, MUMBAI - 400 013.

ALSO HAVING OFFICE AT H.D.F.C. HOUSE, NO.51, KASTURBA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

REPRESENTED BY MR. SHRIDHAR CHINNI, SENIOR MANAGER, RETAIL PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT

...PETITIONER

(BY SMT.CHARU ATREY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VARUN S., ADVOCATE)

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19840 WP No. 13440 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13308 of 2025 WP No. 13361 of 2025

HC-KAR

AND:

THE REGISTRAR, CITY CIVIL COURT CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

MR. DEVENDRA R. THAKKER, SON OF MR. RASHMIKANT THAKKER, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT: F.NO.302, ANANDAVAN APARTMENT, VINAYAK SOCIETY, AKOTA VILLAGE, VADODARA - 390 020.

HAVING PLACE OF WORK AT: NBK HOLDING WLL, DOHA, QATAR, SALWA ROAD - 6002.

OZONE URBANA INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.38, ULSOOR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 042. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.T.P.VIVEKANANDDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20TH JUNE 2024 ANX – L PASSED BY THE LD.

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19840 WP No. 13440 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13308 of 2025 WP No. 13361 of 2025

HC-KAR

V. ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 4TH NOVEMBER 2023 UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 SEEKING REFUND OF THE COURT FEES (IA NO. 5) IN OS NO.3739 OF 2023 ANNX – J AND ETC.,

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner in all these cases is the HDFC Bank Limited. The Bank is calling in question an office note by the Registry of the concerned Court, which directs that there is no warrant to refund the Court fee in the light of the dismissal of the suit.

Heard Smt. Charu Atrey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, in all these cases.

The petitioner is the Bank. The respondent therein initiated certain proceedings for recovery of the money that it had lend to respective borrowers by instituting a suit in

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:19840 WP No. 13440 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13308 of 2025 WP No. 13361 of 2025

HC-KAR

O.S.No.3785/2023 on 20.06.2023. It transpires that the amalgamation of the bank takes place after the institution of the suit on 06.11.2023. The amendment was carried out before the concerned Court on such amalgamation. On 19.06.2024, the bank then files an application seeking withdrawal of the suit on account of the fact that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings that ought to have been instituted before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for short, 'the RDB Act'). The concerned Court allows the application seeking to withdraw the suits and leaves the issue of Court Fee to the Registry to decide. The Registry, then by its office note dated 22.01.2025, rejects the application insofar as it concerns to refund of Court Fee. It is this that has driven the Bank to this Court.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would take this Court through the application seeking withdrawal of the suit to contend that a separate application seeking refund of the Court Fee was also made and in the application, it was clearly narrated that the concerned Court had no jurisdiction or competence to try the suit. The learned counsel would seek to

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:19840 WP No. 13440 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13308 of 2025 WP No. 13361 of 2025

HC-KAR

place reliance upon the judgments of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi and that of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to buttress her submission that the refund of Court Fee is a consequence of the fact that the concerned Court had no jurisdiction to try this suit.

Per contra , the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Sri. T.P. Vivekananda, would submit that refund of Court fee cannot be done in cases where they have filed a memo for withdrawal. In cases where a plain memo for withdrawal is filed, directing refund of Court Fee, will have a catastrophic effect, as every suit that is withdrawn will come up with an application seeking refund of the Court Fee. He would submit that the order or office note of the Registry would not warrant any interference, as the application admittedly filed is contrary to the language of Section 66 of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.

I have given my anxious consideration to the

respective submissions made by the learned counsel and perused the material on record.

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:19840 WP No. 13440 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13308 of 2025 WP No. 13361 of 2025

HC-KAR

The petitioner - Bank institutes a suit in

O.S.No.3785/2023 against several borrowers, who had sought finance from the hands of the Housing Development and Finance Corporation. The notice was issued in this suit. After the issuance of notice, the Housing Development Finance Corporation gets merged with HDFC Bank. The petitioners filed an amendment seeking modification of cause title, which is permitted. When the HDFC Bank comes into picture, it is noticed that the suit that they had filed for recovery of money i.e, the loans advanced to the borrowers, was not maintainable before the concerned Court, as they had to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

In that light, an application comes to be filed before

the concerned Court in I.A.No.5/2023 seeking withdrawal of suit. The affidavit in support of the application reads as follows:

"1. I am the authorized signatory and Senior Manager, Retail Portfolio Management (Legal) of Plaintiff Company. I am aware of the facts of the case. Hence, I am competent and authorized to swear to this affidavit.

The Plaintiff filed the present suit seeking recovery of money due from the Defendant. After the filing of the suit, the Plaintiff has been

11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19840 WP No. 13440 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13308 of 2025 WP No. 13361 of 2025

HC-KAR

amalgamated into M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd. by virtue of an order dated 17^th March 2023 passed by the Learned National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in Company Scheme Petition No.243 of 2022 connected with Company Scheme Application No.200 of 2022.

By virtue of the aforementioned amalgamation, the Plaintiff has ceased to exist and M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd. has taken its place. By virtue of clause 13.1 of the Scheme of Amalgamation sanctioned by the Order dated 17^th March 2023, legal proceedings by the Plaintiff shall be continued by M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd. and M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd. has undertaken to have such proceedings transferred to its name.

Pursuant to the amalgamation, M/s. HDFC Ltd. filed an application seeking leave to amend the plaint to substitute references to the Plaintiff in the plaint. This application came to be allowed and the plaint has been amended.

Consequent to the amendment, the Plaintiff in the present suit is a bank. By virtue of Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (" RDB Act "), this Hon'ble Court does not have the jurisdiction to decide matters specified in Section 17 of the RDB Act i.e., 'to entertain and decide applications from banks for recovery of debts due to such banks' . Due to such bar if jurisdiction, it has become necessary for the Plaintiff to withdraw the present suit and approach the Learned Debts Recovery Tribunal which has the jurisdiction to decide applications from banks for recovery of debts. Hence the present application. Under these circumstances, the Plaintiff is also filing another application seeking refund of the court fee paid at the time of institution of the suit.

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:19840 WP No. 13440 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13308 of 2025 WP No. 13361 of 2025

HC-KAR

In light of the aforementioned, it is just and necessary to allow the accompanying application for withdrawal of the suit. If the accompanying application is allowed, no person will be put to any inconvenience. On the other hand, if the present application is not allowed, then the Plaintiff will be put to severe prejudice.

WHEREFORE the Plaintiff most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the accompanying application, in the interests of justice.

Affirmed on this 6^th day of November 2023 at Bengaluru ."

The affidavit in its narration was unequivocal that there is a bar on jurisdiction with regard to the concerned Court deciding the suit and it had to be preferred before the Competent Tribunal. Another application is filed seeking refund of the Court Fee. The application is verbatim similar except refund of the Court Fee that is sought for. The paragraphs which concern refund of Court Fee in the affidavit, reads as follows:

"6. Since the suit is sought to be withdrawn, it is just and necessary to direct the refund of the entire court fee paid at the time of institution of the suit. Hence the present application. Since the conduct of the Plaintiff is bona fide and diligent, it is most humbly prayed that no part of the court fee

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:19840 WP No. 13440 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13308 of 2025 WP No. 13361 of 2025

HC-KAR

may be deducted and the same may be refunded in full.

In light of the aforementioned, it is just and necessary to allow the accompanying application for refund of the entire court fee. If the accompanying application is allowed, no person will be put to any inconvenience. On the other hand, if the present application is not allowed, then the Plaintiff will be put to severe prejudice."

Pursuant to the affidavit so filed, the memo is filed for not pressing the suit. The memo reads as follows:

"MEMO FOR NOT PRESSING THE SUIT

The Plaintiff most humbly states that the Plaintiff filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint as the Plaintiff has been amalgamated into M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd. By virtue of an order dated 17^th March 2023 passed by the Learned National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in Company Scheme Petition No.243 of 2022 connected with Company Scheme Application No.200 of 2022. By virtue of aforementioned amalgamation, the Plaintiff has ceased to exist and M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd. has taken its place.

By virtue of Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 ("RDB Act"), this Hon'ble Court does not have the jurisdiction to decide matters specified in Section 17 of the RDB Act i.e., 'to entertain and decide applications from banks for recovery of debts due to such banks' . Due to such bar of jurisdiction, the Plaintiff cannot pursue the present suit before this Hon'ble

14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19840 WP No. 13440 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13308 of 2025 WP No. 13361 of 2025

HC-KAR

Court, and seeks to approach the competent forum for recovery. Therefore, does not wish to press the present suit.

In the aforementioned circumstances, it is just and necessary to refund the court fee to the Plaintiff in entirety. Since the conduct of the Plaintiff is bona fide and diligent, it is most humbly prayed that no part of the court fee may be deducted and the same may be refunded in full to the Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE the Plaintiff most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit as not pressed, and direct the office to refund the entire court fee t the Plaintiff, in the interests of justice."

(emphasis supplied)

11. On the said memo and the affidavit, the concerned

Court passes the following order dismissing the suit on such

memo for withdrawal. The order reads as follows:

"Counsel for the Plaintiff present.

Heard arguments on IA No.4.

IA No.4 filed by the Plaintiff seek permission to carried out the amendment of plaint. As per the plaintiff that it required substitute the name and address of the Plaintiff with HDFC Bank Ltd.

On perusal of case record along with averments of application that I am of the view that there is an force in arguments on Plaintiff Counsel.

Accordingly IA No.4 hereby allowed

NC: 2025:KHC:19840 WP No. 13440 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13308 of 2025 WP No. 13361 of 2025

15 -

HC-KAR

To carried out the amendment.

Amendment carried out.

Amended plaint filed.

Counsel for the Plaintiff filed memo stated suit may be dismissed as not pressed. Accordingly suit of the Plaintiff hereby dismissed as not pressed.

Hereby directed the office to dealt the issue with respect to the court fee as per the law."

The concerned Court directs the issue with regard

to refund of Court Fee to be dealt with by the office. The

Registry issues an office note, which reads as follows:

OFFICE NOTE

DATE:22.01.2025

In this suit advocate for plaintiff had filed a memo before the court and prays to dismiss the suit as not pressed. Hon'ble court has passed an order on 19/06/2024 and dismissed the suit as not pressed. Further, Hon'ble court has directed the office to dealt the issue with respect to the court fee as per the law.

In this connection it is submitted that Under Section 66 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1958, there is no provision to refund the court fee in case or dismissal of suit."

(emphasis supplied)

16 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19840 WP No. 13440 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13308 of 2025 WP No. 13361 of 2025

HC-KAR

The Registry declines to grant refund of Court Fee

owing to the rigor under Section 66 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 , as the suit had been dismissed. The issue is whether dismissal of a suit on account of a memo for withdrawal being filed by the plaintiff would entail automatic refund of the Court Fee. The issue need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The High Court of Delhi in the case of NUTAN BATRA V. M/S. BUNIYAAD ASSOCIATES¹ , wherein it has held as follows:

2. The appellant filed the suit in question against the respondents claiming infringement of certain intellectual property rights. The paragraph of the plaint dealing with valuation alone is relevant for the purpose of this appeal. It is as follows:—

“That the suit is valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction in the following manner:

i) For a decree for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, this relief is valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 200 and court fee of Rs. 20/- is affixed hereto;

ii) For a decree for permanent injunction restraining acts of passing off, this relief is valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 200/- and court fee of Rs. 20/- is affixed hereto;

iii) For a decree of delivery up of infringing brochures, print outs and other articles, this relief is valued for

1 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12916

17 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19840 WP No. 13440 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13308 of 2025 WP No. 13361 of 2025

HC-KAR

the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 200/- and court fee of Rs. 20/- is affixed thereto.

iv) For an order for rendition of account of profits illegally earned by the Defendants and/or damages claimed in the alternative, this relief is valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 1,10,00,000/- and court fees of Rs. 1,10,000/- is paid thereon.

Thus the suit is valued for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 1,10,00,000/- and court fees of Rs. 1,10,000/- is paid thereon. The subject matter of the Suit is a commercial dispute as defined in section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellant Division of High Courts Ordinance, 2015.”

6. The relevant statutory provisions which require interpretation for the purpose of this appeal are Sections 16 and 16A of the Act and Section 89 of the CPC (which is referred to in Section 16). These provisions are set out below:

Section 16 of the Court-fees Act, 1870

16. Refund of fee.- Where the Court refers the parties to the suit to any one of the mode of settlement of dispute referred to in Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), the plaintiff shall be entitled to a certificate from the Court authorizing him to receive back from the collector, the full amount of the fee paid in respect of such plaint.

Section 16A of the Court-fees Act, 1870

16A. Refund of fees on settlement before hearing.Whenever by agreement of parties-

i) Any suit is dismissed as settled out of Court before any evidence has been recorded on the merits of the claim; or

18 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19840 WP No. 13440 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13308 of 2025 WP No. 13361 of 2025

HC-KAR

ii) Any suit is compromised ending in a compromise decree before any evidence has been recorded on the merits of the claim; or

iii) Any appeal is disposed of before the commencement of hearing of such appeal; half the amount of all fees paid in respect of the claim or claims in the suit or appeal shall be ordered by the Court to be refunded to the parties by whom the same have been respectively paid.

Section 89 of CPC

89. Settlement of disputes outside the Court.- (1) Where it appears to the Court that there exist elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, the Court shall formulate the terms of settlement and give them to the parties for their observations and after receiving the observations of the parties, the Court may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for-

(a) arbitration

(b) conciliation

(c) judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat; or

(d) mediation

(2) Where a dispute has been referred-

(a) for arbitration or conciliation, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply as if the proceedings for arbitration or conciliation were referred for settlement under the provisions of that Act;

(b) to Lok Adalat, the Court shall refer the same to the Lok Adalat in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1) of section 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) and all other provisions of that Act shall apply in respect of the dispute so referred to the Lok Adalat;

19 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19840 WP No. 13440 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13308 of 2025 WP No. 13361 of 2025

HC-KAR

(c) for judicial settlement, the Court shall refer the same to a suitable institution or person and such institution or person shall be deemed to be a Lok Adalat and all the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) shall apply as if the dispute were referred to a Lok Adalat under the provisions of that Act;

(d) for mediation, the Court shall effect a compromise between the parties and shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed.”

9. Section 16 of the Act was also inserted by the same amendment, apparently with the object of providing some incentive to resort to methods of Alternative Dispute Resolution (hereinafter referred to as “ADR”). The notes on clauses accompanying the bill [which was ultimately enacted as the 1999 Amendment to the CPC] treated it as “consequential” to the insertion of Section 89 in the CPC.

“Clause 35.- (Amendment to the Court fees Act, 1870).

The proposed amendment is consequential to the new Section 89 in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, proposed to be inserted vide clause 7 of the Bill so as to enable the party to claim refund of court-fee in case the matter in dispute is settled outside the court”.

10. Interestingly, the Court-fees Act, 1870 as originally enacted did not contain any provision for refund of court fees in case of suits which did not result in final adjudication by the court. Although, such refunds were provided for in the earlier statute, viz. the Court Fees Act of 1867. With the increase in the burden on the courts in the intervening period, this position has undergone a change once again, and Parliament has intervened to encourage ADR including inter alia arbitration and mediation.

The afore-extracted judgment of the Division Bench of

High Court of Delhi is said to have become final.

20 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19840 WP No. 13440 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13308 of 2025 WP No. 13361 of 2025

HC-KAR

A little earlier to the said judgment of the Division

Bench of High Court of Delhi, the Apex Court in the case of DR. (COL.) SUBHASH CHANDRA TALWAR VS.

T.CHOITHRAM AND SONS AND OTHERS in

SLA(c)No.18102/2013 , has held as follows:

"The petitioner herein filed a suit for damages. The defendants filed a petition before the High Court under Order VII Rule 11 praying for dismissal of the suit on the ground of jurisdiction. That plea was accepted by the learned Single Judge.

On a review petition being filed, the learned Single Judge Modified the order and rejection of the plaint was directed as against dismissal of the suit as ordered earlier.

The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. However, the plaint was ordered to be returned with liberty to file it before the court of competent jurisdiction.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for refund of the court fees. This application has been rejected only on the ground that the appeal has been disposed of on merits. We a unable to agree with the High Court. What has been disposed of is only the rejection order under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This is no order on the merits of the suit. The effect is that the plaint has been ordered to be returned to be filed in the appropriate Court. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to refund of the court fees so that he can fix the court fee in the State where he would like to file the suit. We therefore set aside the order of the High Court and direct that the entire court fees be refunded to the petitioner.

The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.

NC: 2025:KHC:19840 WP No. 13440 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13308 of 2025 WP No. 13361 of 2025

21 -

HC-KAR

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(emphasis supplied)

After the aforesaid orders, the Co-ordinate Bench

following all these orders, has held as follows in the case of Narayana Murthy H.M. and Another vs. Registrar, Debt Recovery Tribunal and Others² :

"25. Therefore, when there is no formal adjudication of a dispute and more so, when a suit or as in this case, securitisation application made under Section 17 of the Sarfaesi Act, 2002 challenging the recovery proceedings initiated by the bank, has been disposed of as infructuous in light of the settlement arrived at between the applicant borrower and the bank, it is an inherent right of the applicant to receive a refund of the court fees, so deposited at the time of the filing of such application. Mere unavailability of an express provision for return/refund of court fees cannot deprive a litigant of the inherently equitable right of a refund of court fee where no order is made on the merits of the arguments canvassed and evidence adduced. Therefore, in concurrence with the ratio enunciated in "progressive aquatech" by the High Court of Telangana, I am of the view that by virtue of Section 37 of the Sarfaesi Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunals (Refund of Court Fee) Rules, 2013 are applicable to a proceeding before the Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act vis-à-vis refund of court fee."

(emphasis supplied)

2 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 1309

22 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19840 WP No. 13440 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13308 of 2025 WP No. 13361 of 2025

HC-KAR

A perusal at the aforesaid quoted orders of the

Apex Court, the High Court of Delhi and that of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, what would unmistakably emerge is when the Court does not have competence to try a suit and a suit is preferred before it, and withdrawn on a memo on the question of jurisdiction of the concerned Court to try a suit or competence to try a suit, refund of Court Fee is axiomatic a caveat it cannot be in all other cases where the suit is dismissed on a plain withdrawal by a memo filed by the plaintiff. This is the only clarification that would be necessary to be rendered.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has relied on the judgment of Division Bench of High Court of Delhi, which directed 50% of the Court Fee to be refunded on certain circumstances. The said judgment is distinguishable to the facts obtaining in the case at hand, without much ado, as the issue therein was with regard to settlement under Section 89 of the C.P.C., which is not the case at hand in the subject petition. The subject petition is plain and simple that the concerned Court did not have jurisdiction to try this suit. If a concerned

23 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19840 WP No. 13440 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13308 of 2025 WP No. 13361 of 2025

HC-KAR

Court does not have jurisdiction to try a suit and a suit is instituted and withdrawn on the question of jurisdiction, the order that is passed by the concerned Court or the Registry in the office note is on the face of it, erroneous. The petitions thus succeed and the concerned Court is directed to refund the Court Fee that was paid at the time of instituting the suit, which is now stood withdrawn.

Ordered accordingly.

Learned counsel, Sri. T.P. Vivekananda is permitted to file

his vakalath in the next four weeks.

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Office note dated 22.01.2025 issued by the Registry of the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, rejecting the Bank's application for refund of court fee after the suits were dismissed as not pressed, on the stated ground that under Section 66 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 there is no provision to refund court fee on dismissal of a suit.¶85
Registry of the City Civil Court, Bengaluru (concerned Court) · 22.01.2025
Prior proceeding
Suit O.S.No.3785/2023 instituted on 20.06.2023 by the petitioner Bank (then HDFC Ltd.) against borrowers for recovery of monies lent; the amalgamation of HDFC Ltd. with HDFC Bank took place after institution of the suit.¶85
Prior proceeding
Amalgamation of HDFC Ltd. into M/s HDFC Bank Ltd. sanctioned by order dated 17 March 2023 of the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Company Scheme Petition No.243 of 2022 connected with Company Scheme Application No.200 of 2022; application to amend the plaint to substitute HDFC Bank was allowed and the plaint amended.¶104
Prior proceeding
Application I.A.No.5/2023 dated 06.11.2023 under Section 151 CPC filed before the concerned Court seeking withdrawal of the suit, on the ground that by virtue of Sections 17 and 18 of the RDB Act, 1993 the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction and the matter lay before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.¶98
Prior proceeding
A separate accompanying application was filed seeking refund of the entire court fee paid at the time of institution of the suit.¶107
Prior proceeding
Memo for not pressing the suit filed; the V Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, by order dated 19.06.2024, after allowing amendment (IA No.4), dismissed the suit as not pressed.¶144
Prior proceeding
By the same order dated 19.06.2024 the concerned Court directed the office to deal with the issue of court fee as per the law, leaving the refund question to the Registry.¶145
Prior proceeding
Parallel suit in WP No. 13308/2025: refund application under Section 151 CPC dated 07.12.2023 in OS No.3836 of 2023; order dated 06.06.2024 of the V Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge challenged via the Registry's office note.¶54
Prior proceeding
Parallel suit in WP No. 13361/2025: refund application (IA No.5) under Section 151 CPC dated 04.11.2023 in OS No.3739 of 2023; order dated 20.06.2024 of the V Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge challenged via the Registry's office note.¶75