Delhi High Court Rules No Court Order Required For Wrongfully Purchased E-Court Fee

Must Read

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court,...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was...

Follow us

Today, in Krishan Kumar v SDM Rohini, the Delhi High Court ruled that if there is a wrongful purchase of the e-court fee or if the submitted fee is not utilized, the same should be refunded by the authorities, without insisting on any kind of court order.

Krishan Kumar, the petitioner, had bought an amount of Rs 7,45,000/- from the Stock Holding Corporation India Ltd. in order to file a suit, however, the fee remained unutilized since the suit was not filed.

The petitioner, while seeking for a refund of the unutilized e-court fee, was, however, asked by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) of Rohini, to submit a court order with respect to the fee.

The judgment was passed by Justice Navin Chawla, by a Single Judge Bench. Sections from s. 25 till s.30 of the Court-Fees Act, 1870, were reviewed and it was held that a stamp or a seal is a mode of paying the court fees for filing of a document. Therefore, paying the court fee is a filing of the document and not the purchase one.

In Secretary, Government of Madras, Home Department and Another vs. Zenith Lamp and Electrical Ltd., (1973) 1 SCC 162, the Supreme Court had stated that the fee taken in courts for filing of suits and other proceedings cannot be “taxed” since the nature of such proceedings is no way similar to that of a ‘tax’ and said that without Legal authority, the state cannot retain money when the suit has not been filed/ event of charge has not occurred.

In the case at hand, the event which should have occurred by the charge of the court fee did not occur, since as per the petitioner, the suit for which he got the e-stamp issued for, was not filed by him. Voiding the authority of the State to retain the fee in any case, since the amount has not been utilized for the purpose and the petitioner wants a refund.

The court addressed the issue by analyzing s.30 of the Act and insisting that an issue of the court order in the present matter is completely unnecessary.

The court stated,

“The policy of the State has to be to avoid and not encourage the same. The respondent must refund this amount on being satisfied of its non-use.” 

As per the directions issued by the court, the petitioner shall receive the refund within four weeks from today after the respective authorities are satisfied that the amount which was used to purchase the re-stamp paper by the petitioner has not been utilized.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgement from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also contribute a blog, articles, story tip, judgment and many more and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

Supreme Court Upheld “Environmental Rule of Law” in NGT Decision to Demolish Illegal Hotel on Forest Land

This case concerns the dispute relating to the additional construction of hotel-cum-restaurant structure in the Bus Stand Complex along with a bus stand and...

UK Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Policyholders in the COVID-19 Business Interruption Case

The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court finally concluded the long-awaited COVID-19 business interruption case brought by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Hiscox Action...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -