BAI MAMUBAI BHIMJI BHANJI TRUST, THROUGH ITS TRUSTEES Vs. NEELKANTH MANSIONS & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A few days ago, Mr Modi mentioned the matter. He said he had applied to the registry for a certificate for a refund allowed by the court at the time when the suit was settled. The registry orally declined to issue that certificate. It said Mr Modi's application was barred by the proviso to Section 43(1) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959. Mr Modi sought a direction to the registry to issue that certificate so that he could present it to the collectorate to get the refund.

(2.) That seemingly innocuous request raised, I found, a question of interpretation of one phrase under Section 43. Section 43 allows a refund of half the court fees when a suit is settled before evidence. But that refund, its proviso says, cannot be allowed if the 'claim for repayment' is made more than one year after the date when the suit is settled. The question therefore is this: when is 'a claim for repayment' said to be made? Is it when the party entitled to a refund gets an order allowing that refund, or is it when the party, having obtained such an order, applies to the registry for a certificate? Correctly read, does the application for a certificate have to be made within one year of the date of settlement? Is the 'claim for repayment' the application for a certificate, or is it the request to the court to allow a refund? At my request Mr Bhanage, learned AGP, has rendered assistance Court on the question of interpretation.

(3.) The following facts will provide sufficient context. The suit itself was of 2014. The 1st Plaintiff is a private family trust. On 28th October 2014, parties tendered Consent Terms to RD Dhanuka J. He made an order on those. He took the Consent Terms on record, accepted the undertakings and disposed of the suit in accordance with the Consent Terms. The order itself did not say anything in regard to the refund at all. Clause 24 of the Consent Terms signed by the parties contained a single line: "refund of Court fees as per Rules". This is the usual compact wording we find in many Consent Terms and, indeed, routinely in judicial orders of this court.