The High Court of Kerala, through learned judge, Justice B. Badharudeen in the case K.K Ibrahim v. Cochin Kaagaz (OP(C) NO. 674 OF 2020) held that if dispute is not settled after being referred to Arbitration, party can’t claim refund of Court Fee
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: The plaintiff, had filed this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking modification of order passed earlier, whereby the learned Sub Judge referred the parties in the Suit for arbitration after closing the Suit, without order for refund of 1/10th court fee paid by the petitioner/plaintiff in the Suit. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner herein paid 1/10 court fee to the tune of Rs.1,21,840/- at the time of institution of the Suit and since the parties were referred to arbitration, the plaintiff was entitled to get return of the 1/10 court fee paid by him. When the learned counsel was asked to point out the enabling provisions in the Act, it was fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no direct provision in the Act enabling return of 1/10 court fee paid, on mere reference under Section 89 of C.P.C.
JUDGEMENT: The court declared that the petitioner in this case had not produced any materials to substantiate the fact that on reference to arbitration, the dispute was settled. In view of the matter, the court observed that the contention raised by the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner was entitled to get 1/10th of the court fee paid merely because the parties were referred to arbitration by recourse to Section 69 of the Act cannot be sustained and therefore the court dismissed the petition without interfering with the order of the learned Munsiff in any manner.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – AMRUTHA K