LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/sanjeevkumar-harakchand-kankariya-vs-union-of-india-ors-20241219/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Sanjeevkumar Harakchand Kankariya vs Union of India & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
19 December 2024
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 14742 of 2024
Result
Dismissed
Bench
C.T. Ravikumar, Sanjay Karol
Citation
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 866 : 2024 INSC 1004
Acts & Sections
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 Court Fees Act, 1870 CPC Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 Mediation Act, 2023 Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959
Supreme Court Reports [2024] 12 S.C.R. 866 : 2024 INSC 1004
Issue for consideration
Issue arose whether in view of the inconsistency between the Court Fees Act, 1870 and Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959, if any, would the appellant be entitled to a complete refund of court fees per the former, since it is a Central legislation.
Headnote

Court Fees Act, 1870 – Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.89 – Settlement of disputes outside the Court – Court fees – Complete refund of – Entitlement – Civil dispute filed by the appellant which was resolved through mediation u/s.89 CPC – Trial court allowed refund of court fees only to the extent of 50% – Appellant filed writ petition seeking complete refund of court fees on the ground that the civil court erred by allowing refund only to the extent of 50% in view s.16 of the CFA, 1870; that as per s.21 of the LSA Act,1987 when a matter is referred to Lok Adalat u/s.20(1) of the said Act and a compromise or settlement is arrived, the court fee paid in such a matter shall also be refunded in accordance with CFA, 1870; that the said Act being a Central legislation, would override the State enactment – High Court rejected the petition – Correctness: Held: Entry 11A List III cannot govern the refund of court fees when a matter is settled by methods of alternate dispute resolution, in the face of Entry 3 List II simply by the use of the words “administration of justice” in the former – Reference to CFA, 1870 in respect of refund of court fees when the matter is settled by way of an award of Lok Adalat does not mean that the same shall be extended to the settlement of dispute by mediation for the simple reason that Lok Adalat and mediation are two distinct methods and cannot be equated – High Court made suggestion to the State legislature that the differences in the court fees in Lok Adalat, vis-à-vis, the forms of ADR should be done away to promote the adaptation of such methods of dispute resolution among the public – State legislature carried out such an amendment to the MCFA, 1959 and s.16A has been introduced therein – Effect would be that for the time when the amendment to the MCFA, 1959 granting partial or complete refund, as the case may be, in accordance with s.43 as amended, the persons whose matters were settled by way of ADR would not be entitled to 100% refund – Any matter settled under the processes mentioned in s.89 CPC after the coming into force of the said amendment, such parties to receive refund of court fees in its entirety – Total amount of court fees paid by the appellant, in respect of the refund of which the matter has travelled up to this Court was approximately Rs. 5 lakhs – Considering the fact that the original dispute was settled amicably and that the amount of court fees involved is not excessive, the same can be refunded to him. [Paras 20-24]

Keywords: Inconsistency between the Court Fees Act, 1870 and Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 · Complete refund of court fees · Central legislation · Maharashtra State Legislature · Refund · Court fees · Civil dispute · Mediation u/s.89 CPC · Refund of court fees only to the extent of 50% · Lok Adalat · Compromise or settlement · Alternate dispute resolution · Administration of justice · Award of Lok Adalat · Settlement of dispute by mediation · Lok Adalat and mediation, two distinct methods

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment Sanjay Karol, J. Leave granted. THE CHALLENGE 2. This appeal questions the correctness of the judgment and order dated 1st October, 2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) between the self-same parties, whereby the High Court refused the prayer of the appellant herein seeking (a) a writ, order, order or direction to the State of Maharashtra to initiate a complete refund of court fees of all litigants including the appellant whose proceedings before the Civil Courts were disposed of in accordance with Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure 19081
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →