16 Dec 2020 5:21 AM GMT
Delhi High Court has held that the State is bound to refund the Court Fees when remains un-utilized shall be refunded without insisting for court ordersThe Court was of the view that while making the payment of court fees, stamp is the accepted mode of payment and the process gets completed only when the document is filed. Mere purchase of payment does not mean conclusion of the...
Delhi High Court has held that the State is bound to refund the Court Fees when remains un-utilized shall be refunded without insisting for court orders
The Court was of the view that while making the payment of court fees, stamp is the accepted mode of payment and the process gets completed only when the document is filed. Mere purchase of payment does not mean conclusion of the payment process.
The Court also held that the prerequisite condition of submitting the Court order for refund must be done away with and the refund must be initiated on the satisfaction of the fund being unutilized.
The petitioner had filed a writ of mandamus praying a refund of Rs. 7,45,000 arguing that he is entitled for a refund because the case was never file, therefore, in such cases the fees remains unutilized. The petitioner had purchased the court fees from Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. (SHCIL) on 31.10.2017. However, when the suit was not filed, an application was made for refund on 22.02.2018 to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rohini Court. The Court vide order dated 27.08.2019 asked the petitioner to submit the court order for refund of the fees. The petition was then filed seeking directions to initiate the refund.
Justice Navin Chawla specifically relied on the interpretation of Sec. 30 which provides that no document requiring a stamp shall be filed or acted upon in any proceedings in Court or Office unless it is cancelled. The Single Judge held that "A reading of the above provisions would clearly indicate that the stamp is the mode of payment of court fees at the time of filing of the document. The incident of payment of such fees is the filing of the document and not the purchase thereof."
In doing so, J. Chawla relied on a series of judgments in the case of Secty. Govt. of Madras & Anr. v. Zenith Lamp & Anr. (1973) decided by the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court judgments in Aya Singh Tirlok Singh vs. Munshi Ram Amta Ram, (1968) and Dr.Poornima Advani & Anr. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr (2018) where the Courts held that the State cannot retain money without authority of law. It cannot be so retained if the event of charge has not occurred.
The Court directed the State to initiate the refund of court fees which remained unutilized in the event of non filing of the suit.
Click Here To Download Order