Skip to content


In Re: B. Kappini Gounder and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1938Mad67; (1937)2MLJ788
AppellantIn Re: B. Kappini Gounder and ors.
Cases ReferredV.K.P. Chockalingam Ambalam v. Maung Tin I.L.
Excerpt:
- - the principle underlying these decisions, if we may say so with respect, is both good law and sound sense......to be the settled practice of this court, this request should be summarily rejected; however, as a point of principle has been raised, we have gone into the matter carefully. sections 13, 14 and 15 of the court-fees act deal with refunds of court-fee and of these, section 13 provides for the return of the fee paid on a memorandum of appeal. the present case obviously does not come within the purview of that section. then the question arises, has the court power to direct a refund of court-fee, independent of the express provisions of the court-fees act? the courts have gone to the extent of holding that they can order a refund under their inherent powers, where an excess court-fee has been paid (i) by mistake of party, (ii) in obedience to a wrong order of court. the principle underlying.....
Judgment:

Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The appeal has been withdrawn as having been settled out of Court and the appellant makes a somewhat unusual request that he should be allowed a refund of the court-fee paid on the memorandum of appeal.

2. If we should have regard to what is taken to be the settled practice of this Court, this request should be summarily rejected; however, as a point of principle has been raised, we have gone into the matter carefully. Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Court-Fees Act deal with refunds of court-fee and of these, Section 13 provides for the return of the fee paid on a memorandum of appeal. The present case obviously does not come within the purview of that section. Then the question arises, has the Court power to direct a refund of court-fee, independent of the express provisions of the Court-Fees Act? The Courts have gone to the extent of holding that they can order a refund under their inherent powers, where an excess court-fee has been paid (i) by mistake of party, (ii) in obedience to a wrong order of Court. The principle underlying these decisions, if we may say so with respect, is both good law and sound sense. But to go further and hold that a court-fee, properly paid, can be refunded, would be to render nugatory, the express provisions of the Court-Fees Act, for, what difference does it make in principle, between permitting a document to be filed originally without a court-fee and refunding the court-fee already paid in respect of it? It is elementary that no Court has inherent power t do that which is expressly prohibited by statute.

3. Then turning to authority, In re Chidambaram Chettiar (1934) 67 M.L.J. 321: I.L.R. 57 Mad. 1028 is directly in point and supports our view. There are two cases on which the applicant relies, namely, Mohammad Sadiq Alt Khan Nawab Mirzav. Saiyid Ali Abbas I.L.R (1932) 7 Luck. 588 and Galstaunv. Janaki Nath 38 C.W.N. 185. These cases have, in our opinion, been rightly dissented from in the Madras case already referred to. Dissent has been expressed from those cases in other decisions also. (See Indu Bushan Rai Chowdhry v. Secretary of State for India : AIR1935Cal707 and In re V.K.P. Chockalingam Ambalam v. Maung Tin I.L.R (1936) 14 Rang. 173 .)

4. In the result, the application is rejected with costs. The applicant will pay the fees payable to the Government Pleader which we fix at Rs. 30.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //