Code of Civil Procedure

Deciphering Court Fee Refunds: A Comparative Analysis of Settlement via ADR v. Private Settlement

Introduction

In the Indian jurisprudence, the levy of court fee is inter alia sanctioned by the Court Fees Act, 1870 (“Court Fee Act”) for the purpose of instituting a suit or claim by a party to the matter or litigation. The payment of court fee is a condition precedent for seeking the aid of the court. The amount to be paid as court fee is prescribed by law and until the pre-determined amount is paid, the litigant cannot be heard, save with the leave of the court. However, if the parties to a suit come to a mutual understanding to resolve the dispute amicably, the law also prescribes for a procedure for providing a refund of the previously paid court fee by the litigant. The only remaining question that begs determination is when and how much of the court fee will be refunded to the litigant.Continue Reading Deciphering Court Fee Refunds: A Comparative Analysis of Settlement via ADR v. Private Settlement

Obviating Hurdles for Swifter Execution of Arbitral Awards

Context

In India, execution of decrees is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), and execution of arbitration awards is governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’), and the CPC. For the purposes of enforcement, both domestic and foreign awards (recognition and enforcement thereof) are treated as decree of Court. This legal fiction also applies to consent awards, which are obtained after settlement is entered between parties. Domestic awards, which are basically India-seated arbitral awards, are governed by Part I of the 1996 Act, while foreign awards, which are foreign seated arbitral awards, are governed by Part II of the 1996 Act.Continue Reading Obviating Hurdles for Swifter Execution of Arbitral Awards

‘Party’ and ‘witness’ on an equal footing for the purpose of adducing evidence in civil suit: Supreme Court clarifies

Introduction

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its recent judgment in Mohammed Abdul Wahid v. Nilofer & Anr.,[1] adjudicated inter alia upon whether the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) makes a distinction between a ‘party to a suit’ and a ‘witness in a suit’ through its adopted phraseology? More specifically, whether a party to a suit i.e. a plaintiff or a defendant may be equated to a witness when interpreting the provisions of Order VII Rule 14 [Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies]; Order VIII Rule 1A(4)(a) [Duty of Defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him]; and Order XIII Rule 1(3)(a) [Original Documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues] of the CPC?Continue Reading ‘Party’ and ‘witness’ on an equal footing for the purpose of adducing evidence in civil suit: Supreme Court clarifies