Allowed

T.K.Ananda Padmanabhan v. District Collector

Kerala HC14 Jun 2022OP(C)/1015/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original petition filed under Order 39 Rule 2 Cr.P.C., the Court allowed the petitioner's claim for a refund of the entire court fee paid. The petitioner challenged orders deducting 7% of the stamp duty paid, citing Section 69A of the Kerala Court Fees Act. Relying on Mithun T. Abraham, the Court held the deduction unsustainable and ordered a refund within one month.

What did the court decide?

Respondent ordered to refund the entire court fee paid by the petitioner within one month of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

T.K.Ananda Padmanabhan Vs District… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

OP(C) NO. 1015 OF 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1944 OP(C) NO. 1015 OF 2022

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 243/2014 OF PRINCIPAL SUB

¶8

COURT , TRIVANDRUM

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

T.K.ANANDA PADMANABHAN AGED 50 YEARS S/O. LATE SRI. T.P KRISHNAN, 'SARANAGATHI', T.C. 37/1070, WEST STREET, FORT P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695023.

¶11

BY ADVS. M.BALAGOVINDAN A.ANOOP LAL KUMAR N.

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE OF THE COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695043.

¶14

GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

OP(C) NO. 1015 OF 2022

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The original petition is filed to set aside Exts.P3 and P4 orders to the extent it deducts 7% from the court fee paid by the petitioner.

¶20

The petitioner had filed O.S.No.243/2014 before the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking a decree for damages against the defendant. Pending the suit, the parties to the suit were referred for mediation and their disputes were settled as per the mediation agreement. The Court below, on the basis of the mediation agreement, decreed the suit and ordered the refund of the court fee. The petitioner had filed Ext.P2, seeking refund of the court fee of Rs.8,18,400/-. However, the Court below has ordered only the refund of Rs.7,61,112/-, as evidenced from Exts.P3 and P4 certificates. The petitioner assailed Exts.P3 and P4 before this Court by

¶21

OP(C) NO. 1015 OF 2022 3

¶22

filing WP(C) No.42087/2018. This Court, by Ext.P5 judgment, relegated the petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with law. Hence, the original petition. The petitioner contends that deduction of 7% of the total court fee by the respondent – the District Collector - is unsustainable in law and is against Section 69A of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. Hence, Exts.P3 and P4 may be set aside, to the extent of deducting 7% from the total court fee paid by the petitioner.

¶23

Heard; Sri.M.Balagovindan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

¶24

This Court in Mithun T. Abraham vs. Sub Court of Judicature and others [ILR 2022 (2) Kerala 699] has, in a case of identical nature, held that deduction of 7% court fee by the Government by

¶25

OP(C) NO. 1015 OF 2022

¶26

¶27

placing reliance on the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation (Board of Revenue) Rules, 1960 is unsustainable in law. I completely agree with the ratio decidendi in Mithun T. Abraham (supra).

¶28

As a case at hand is identical to the case in Mithun T. Abraham (supra), I allow this original petition, by setting aside the deduction of 7% from the total court fee paid by the petitioner.

¶29

In the result, the original petition is allowed by ordering the respondent to refund the entire court fee paid by the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

rkc/14.16.22

OP(C) NO. 1015 OF 2022

¶34

¶35

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1015/2022

¶36

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶37

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S. 243/2014 ISSUED BY THE SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 20.03.2018. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION C.F. NO. 2802/2018 IN O.S. 243/2014 DATED 26.03.2018. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 21.05.2018. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE LEARNED SUB JUDGE DATED 21.05.2018. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 42087/2018 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT, DATED 05.11.2021.

T.K.Ananda Padmanabhan v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.K.Ananda Padmanabhan v. District Collector

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

Mohanan Vs Shylaja

The District Collector, Vs Saiju

Soumya.I.v Vs N.Sreekumar

Nayana Venu Vs Vineeth T.K

Abdul Salim Vs Chellappa

St Sebastians Sadhujana Sahaya Sangam Vs Paul . S