An application regarding the substitution of the authorized representative with the learned counsel's name to enable the credit of court fee refund following a suit dismissed as settled.
Registry directed to refund court fee to Ms. Deepika Murali; judgment re-issued with modified paragraph 9.
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.
A.No.671 of 2023
A.No.671 of 2023 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.234 of 2022
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
By judgment and decree dated 02.12.2022, the suit was dismissed as settled out of Court. Consequently, the Court directed refund of court fees to the plaintiff. By this application, the plaintiff seeks the substitution of the name of the authorized representative of the plaintiff, Mr.Lucas Jayakumar, with the name of learned counsel for the plaintiff so as to enable learned counsel to receive the refund of court fees.
1/3
A.No.671 of 2023
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
rna
paragraph 9 thereof with the following paragraph:
Court and the defendant has also not entered appearance, the plaintiff is entitled to refund of court fees in accordance with rules. Such refund
shall be made by remittance into the bank account of Ms.Deepika Murali,
Advocate."
08.02.2023
rna
A.No.671 of 2023
2/3
A.No.671 of 2023
in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.234 of 2022
3/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the name of the authorized representative should be substituted with that of the learned counsel for the purpose of refunding court fees?
Plaintiff
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
