The High Court of Punjab and Haryana confirms that parties who settle privately (outside the court process but before the court) are entitled to a refund of court fees, referencing the Supreme Court’s purposive interpretation in M.C. Subramaniam (2021). This ruling reaffirms that the benefit under Section 69-A of the Court Fees Act extends beyond cases formally referred under Section 89 CPC, serving as binding precedent across subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana for civil litigation matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/72/2022 of M/S S.D. STORES AND ANR Vs J A MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED |
| CNR | PHHC010223002021 |
| Date of Registration | 10-01-2022 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana; persuasive for other courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court decision in M.C. Subramaniam (2021) |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure / Court Fees |
| Questions of Law | Whether refund of court fee is available when parties privately settle their dispute and such settlement is placed before the court. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The judgment reiterates that parties who settle disputes through private negotiations, and subsequently record the settlement before the court, are entitled to the benefit of refund of court fees under Section 69-A of the Court Fees Act. The court applies the purposive and liberal interpretation of Section 89 CPC and Section 69-A, as clarified by the Supreme Court in M.C. Subramaniam (2021), and directs refund of the court fee in such cases. The rationale is to encourage out-of-court settlements and reduce the burden on judicial resources. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court’s observations that the refund is an economic incentive for alternative dispute resolution and should apply to any settlement placed before court, not only those formally referred under Section 89 CPC. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Both parties reached a written settlement on 30.09.2025 before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre attached to the court. The appeal was disposed in terms of the settlement, and a request was made for refund of the court fee. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana in civil matters involving private settlements placed before the court. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and possibly the Supreme Court, when dealing with similar situations regarding refund of court fees on settlement. |
| Follows | Supreme Court in M.C. Subramaniam and others (2021) 3 SCC 560 and Karnataka High Court in Kamalamma. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment affirms that parties can seek a refund of court fees even when disputes are settled out of court, provided the settlement is recorded before the court.
- The benefit is not limited to referrals under Section 89 CPC, but extends to all privately negotiated settlements accepted by court.
- This approach is intended to incentivize out-of-court settlements, relieving judicial backlog.
- Lawyers should be proactive in applying for refund of court fee upon successful private settlement, referencing this authority.
- The court referenced the Supreme Court’s rationale that denying such refund would be unwarranted and contrary to the purpose of the law.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court noted both counsels were in agreement about the settlement, which was formally placed on record.
- The main legal issue was whether parties who settle privately (not via formal court referral) are entitled to refund of court fees.
- The court referred extensively to the Supreme Court’s interpretation in M.C. Subramaniam (2021), extracting specific passages about the purpose and scope of Section 69-A of the Court Fees Act and Section 89 CPC.
- The Supreme Court in M.C. Subramaniam held that a liberal, purposive construction should apply, and the benefit of court fee refund must extend to any legally valid settlement placed before the court, not just those made through processes formally recognized under Section 89 CPC.
- The rationale is that facilitating such refunds promotes alternative dispute resolution and reduces unnecessary litigation, benefitting the judiciary and the parties involved.
- The court, finding the present case to fall squarely within the scenario described by the Supreme Court, ordered the refund of court fees accordingly.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants):
- Parties have reached a written settlement dated 30.09.2025 before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre.
- Requested disposal of the appeal in terms of the settlement.
- Sought refund of the court fees in terms of Section 89 CPC.
Respondent:
- Agreed to the settlement.
- No objection recorded to disposal in terms of the settlement or refund of court fee.
Factual Background
The appellants and the respondent were parties to a civil suit which was the subject of the present second appeal. On 30.09.2025, both parties reached a written settlement at the Mediation & Conciliation Centre attached to the High Court. The appeal was disposed of on the basis of this settlement, and request for refund of the court fee was made immediately.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court discussed Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which deals with the referral of disputes to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods.
- The Court Fees Act’s Section 69-A was interpreted in light of Supreme Court’s guidance as extending the benefit of court fee refund to all methods of out-of-court settlements, whether or not they are explicitly referred by the court under Section 89.
- The statutory approach favored a liberal interpretation to encourage dispute settlement and reduce litigation burden, in line with Supreme Court’s purposive construction.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines were articulated in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court’s liberal interpretation in M.C. Subramaniam (2021) is followed and applied.