The Supreme Court in the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Rep. by its Registrar General Versus M.C. Subramaniam & Ors., dated 17.02.21 held that “thus, in our view, the High Court was correct in holding that Section 89 of the CPC and Section 69A of the 1955 Act be interpreted liberally. In view of this broad purposive construction, we affirm the High Court’s conclusion, and hold that Section 89 of CPC shall cover, and the benefit of Section 69Aof the 1955 Act shall also extend to, all methods of out of court dispute settlement between parties that the Court subsequently finds to have been legally arrived at. This would, thus, cover the present controversy, wherein a private settlement was arrived at, and a memo to withdraw the appeal was filed before the High Court. In such a case as well, the appellant, i.e., Respondent No. 1 herein would be entitled to refund of court fee.
Recent Posts
- Only that person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company alone shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished.: Supreme Court of India
- Life Insurance Corporation is not entitled to levy a service charge or fee for endorsing the assignment or transfer of policy: Supreme Court of India.
- If the commercial use is by the purchasers themselves for the purpose of earning their livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchasers of good would continue to be ‘consumers’ under Consumer Protection Act: Supreme Court of India.
- High Court can entertain Section 482 Petition to quash FIR even if chargesheet has been filed during its pendency: Supreme Court
- Execution petition cannot be dismissed merely on the basis that the property has been lost to a third party/encroacher.: Supreme Court of India
Recent Comments