Geoserve Energy Transport Dmcc Vs Mv Teleri M (Imo 9648867)

“On going through the I.A. No.19 of 2025 filed by the plaintiff, it reveals that the same was filed for refund of the Court Fees on the ground that the matter was amicably settled between the parties. As the matter has already been settled between both the sides, if the Hon’ble Court feel it proper to refund the Court Fees as per Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 in light of the Judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court decided in the case of High Court of Judicature at Madras represented by its Registrar General Vrs. MC Subhramanyam and others 2021 (3) SCC 560, then the plaintiff has to file a refund application before the undersigned along with the order of the Hon’ble Court after which steps will be taken for refund of the Court Fees.”

¶25

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff Mr. Das refers to Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870. The said section is reproduced herein:

¶26

“ 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 authorising him to receive back from the Collector, the full amount of the fee paid in respect of such plaint.”

¶27

4. In the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the

¶28

High Court Of Judicature at Madras represented by its Registrar General vs M. C. Subramaniam ; (2021) 3 SCC

¶29

560 the Supreme Court considered interpretation of Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 as referred to in Section 16 of the Court Fees Act. The Court accepted the

¶30

Page 2 of 5

¶31

interpretation given by the High Court of Madras that the Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code should be interpreted liberally. Section 89 provides for settlement of disputes outside the Court. Section 89 is reproduced below:

¶32

“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:--

¶33

(a) arbitration;

¶34

(b) conciliation;

¶35

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

¶36

(d) mediation.

¶37

(2) Where a dispute has been referred--

¶38

(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;

¶39

(b) to Lok Adalat, the Court shall refer the same to the Lok Adalat in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (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;

¶40

(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

¶41

Page 3 of 5

¶42

dispute were referred to a Lok Adalat under the provisions of that Act;

¶43

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

¶44

The issue before the High Court of Madras was that whether any of the modes of the settlement outside Court, other than those specified in Section 89 can also come to aid of the plaintiff to seek refund of the Court fee deposited as provided in Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870. The Apex Court held that the benefit of refund of Court Fee can be extended in any kind of settlement of dispute outside the Court.

¶45

5. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is entitled for refund of the Court fee in terms of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 read with Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in High Court of Madras (supra) .

¶46

6. Accordingly, the I.A. is allowed and disposed of.

¶47

7. The plaintiff shall move the Registry for refund of the Court Fee in the manner as provided in the Orissa High

¶48

Court Rules/The Code of Civil Procedure and The Court Fees Act. The Registry shall act upon such application of the plaintiff and refund of the Court fee. Ordered accordingly.

(M.S. Sahoo)

Judge

jyostna

Signature Not Verified

¶53

Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOSTNARANI MAJHEE Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 23-May-2025 18:01:22

¶54

Page 5 of 5

Geoserve Energy Transport Dmcc v. Mv Teleri M (Imo 9648867)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geoserve Energy Transport Dmcc v. Mv Teleri M (Imo 9648867)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagirathi Jena Vs State of Odisha

Janakalyan Majhi Vs Secretary to Govt.of Odisha

Sonalisa Ranasingh Vs Lokanath Ranasingh

Rabinarayan Das Vs Satya Ranjan Sahoo, Dir. of Secondy. Edn., Odisha

Kotni Rajesh Kumar Vs Chairman Permanent Lok Adalat (Pus), Ganjam

Kotni Rajesh Kumar Vs Chairman Permanent Lok Adalat (Pus), Ganjam