Hot Off The PressNews

SCBA writes to Secretary General, Supreme Court, requesting inclusion of RuPay card and UPI for payment of court fees.

For the payment of Court Fees, the Supreme Court website is accepting payments from only four credit Cards i.e. Visa, Mastercard, Mistro and American express. It does not provide the facility of payment through Rupay Cards and UPI. 

Rupay was a payment scheme launched by the Government of India to fulfill vision of India’s own, domestic, open and multilateral payment system and UPI is an initiative by Government of India with multiple benefits. Both schemes are being highly promoted by the Government of India, therefore most of the Banks are issuing RuPay Cards where a large population as also many members of the Bar use the Rupay Cards and UPI system for payments.

Therefore, SCBA requested that payments for this purpose should also be accepted through RuPay Card and UPI. 

Supreme Court Bar Association

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court:  Lisa Gill, J. allowed the application for the refund of the fees on the ground that the matter was resolved between the parties.

An appeal was filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad where the suit for specific performance filed by the appellant was dismissed.

Rakesh Kumar Sharma, counsel for the applicant/appellant submitted that the appellant does not wish to pursue the appeal which was filed for the specific performance as the dispute between the parties had been resolved amicably.The applicant/appellant further prayed for the refund of the court fee.  Reliance was placed upon the decision of Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the case of A. Sreeramaiah v. South Indian Bank Ltd., 2006 SCC Online Kar 563 in which it was held that the matter being resolved by the parties amicably, amongst themselves without the intervention of the court, the court fees should be refunded.

In the above-mentioned case, the court held that the object behind Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is to encourage the parties to arrive at the settlement. It is not important that the parties are referred to the four methods but if parties themselves at the earliest stage before the court come to the settlement, it will be considered that the object of Section 89 is achieved. The court further held that “No party should be discriminated in the matter of refund of Court Fees mainly on the ground that they have settled the dispute at the earliest stage before the court without recourse to any of the methods mentioned under Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.” Thus, the court directed the refund of the court fees appended with the appeal to the appellant. [Raj Kumar v. Gainda Devi, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 658decided on 29-5-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Orissa High Court: A Bench comprising of Dr A.K. Rath, J. clarified the point on exemption of paying court fees in respect of a woman through the present order.

The plaintiff-opposite party 1 had instituted the suit for declaration of title, partition and permanent injunction. Value of the suit was at Rs 1, 11, 84,300 on which ad valorem court fees is of Rs 3, 61,931 payable. It has been contended that the plaintiff being a woman will be exempted from the payment of court fees.

Further, it has been stated that the plaintiff in the present case was a citizen of USA due to which she was not liable to be exempted from payment of court fees. Trial Court had rejected the said submissions which lead to the instant petition.

The Bench stated that in accordance to the SRO No. 575 of 1994 issued by the Government of Orissa under Section 35 of the Court Fees Act, 1987, categories of persons are exempted from payment of court fees, which clearly states that women are exempted from the payment of court fees. The Court also stated that the notification sweeps the woman of any status or nationality.

Therefore, in view of the notification stated above, plaintiff being a woman is exempted from the payment of court fees and the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting the interference of the Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. [Sanjay Kumar Das v. Munmum Patnaik, 2018 SCC OnLine Ori 445, decided on 21-12-2018]


Case BriefsHigh Courts

Orissa High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Dr A.K. Rath, J., dismissed the petition which challenged the order of the trial court whereby the Court allowed the application of the defendant filed under Order 7 Rule 11(c) CPC and directed the plaintiff to pay ad-valorem court fees.

The facts of the case are as that the plaintiff-petitioner had instituted the suit for declaration of title and declaration that the sale deed executed by him in favor of the defendant as null and void. The litigation started between the parties and the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(c) CPC stating that the plaintiff had instituted the suit for declaration that the registered sale deed as void. They contended that the plaintiff was the executant of the sale deed, he sought its cancellation and therefore He should pay ad-valorem court fees. Plaintiff filed an objection to the said application and their counsel, Mr Samir Kumar Mishra and Mr S. Rout contended that the sale deed was a nominal one and no consideration was passed and thus the plaintiff could put his own valuation and pay the court fees.

The Court, relying on the Umakanta Das v. Pradip Kumar Ray, 1986 SCC OnLine Ori 11, dismissed the petition and upheld the order of the trial court, directing the petitioners to pay the ad valorem court fees. [Kumar Soumyakanta Bisoi v. Banita Panda, 2018 SCC OnLine Ori 435, decided on 18-12-2018]