Court Fee Refund After Mediation - SC Ruling
The Supreme Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Sanjaykumar Harkchand Kankariya v. Union of India. The case revolved around the complete refund of court fees in Maharashtra when a dispute was resolved through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), such as mediation.
Case Title: CRLMC No.4485 of 2024
Petitioner: Manoj Kumar Munda
Respondents: State of Odisha & Anr.
Though the matter revolved around a procedural issue, its implications have a wide-ranging impact on how court fees are managed in cases that reach amicable resolution outside the courtroom. The judgment reaffirms the principle that access to justice should not become financially burdensome when parties opt for faster, efficient alternatives like mediation or conciliation.
Background of the Case
The petitioner had filed a special civil suit in Maharashtra related to a property dispute. Following the court’s recommendation, the parties participated in mediation, resulting in a successful settlement. Consequently, the matter was withdrawn. However, the petitioner received only 50% of the court fees refunded as per the Maharashtra Court Fees Act (MCFA), 1959.
The petitioner challenged the partial refund policy, arguing that a full refund should apply, especially given the public interest in encouraging ADR mechanisms that decongest courts and provide quicker resolutions.
Key Legal Issues Before the Court
- Does the Central Court Fees Act, 1870 (CFA) override the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 (MCFA)?
- Should successful mediation entitle litigants to a 100% refund of the court fee?
Supreme Court’s Interpretation and Observations
1. Federal Structure and Legislative Authority
The Supreme Court emphasized that "court fees" fall within the State List under Schedule VII of the Constitution. This places the subject within the exclusive legislative competence of individual state legislatures.
The Court clarified that once Maharashtra enacted its own court fees law in 1959, the central CFA ceased to be applicable within the state's territory. Thus, state policy, as outlined in the MCFA, governs court fee refunds in such cases.
2. Distinction Between Mediation and Lok Adalat
The Court made a vital distinction between different ADR methods:
- Lok Adalat Settlements: Governed by CFA, 1870, allowing 100% refund of court fees.
- Mediation: Falls under state legislation and therefore only entitled to a 50% refund under MCFA (prior to its 2018 amendment).
This difference highlighted the inconsistencies in how the legal framework treats different ADR mechanisms, despite their similar purposes.
3. The Role of Article 142 of the Constitution
While affirming the validity of the MCFA, the Supreme Court used its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to do "complete justice." It ordered that the petitioner be refunded the entire ₹5 lakh paid as court fees — a move that sets a powerful precedent.
This discretionary intervention served not only as a relief to the petitioner but as a broader call for reform.
4. Encouraging Alternative Dispute Resolution
The Court acknowledged the systemic value of ADR mechanisms. Reducing court fee burdens in such settlements acts as an incentive for parties to avoid lengthy litigation. Encouraging faster, cost-effective dispute resolution aligns with judicial reforms and resource optimization.
Legislative Reform Following the Verdict
Following the momentum generated by the judgment, the Maharashtra government took concrete steps. In 2018, it amended the MCFA to include Section 16A, which now mandates a 100% court fee refund in all cases resolved through ADR methods, including mediation and conciliation.
This amendment brings Maharashtra’s legal framework in line with the goals of judicial economy, access to justice, and dispute resolution efficiency.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Sets a precedent for using Article 142 in public-interest litigation where legislative gaps exist.
- Encourages state governments to align ADR policies with fair financial outcomes for litigants.
- Bolsters trust in mediation and other out-of-court mechanisms as effective alternatives to lengthy litigation.
- Promotes legal awareness and citizen participation in resolving disputes amicably.
What Litigants Should Know
If you are a litigant involved in a civil or property dispute in Maharashtra — or any other Indian state — this judgment carries crucial takeaways:
- Always inquire about state-specific laws governing court fee refunds.
- Consider mediation, conciliation, or arbitration for quicker and cheaper outcomes.
- Post-2018 in Maharashtra, 100% court fee refund is now the norm in ADR-resolved cases.
- Seek legal advice early to ensure your rights under Article 142 or relevant state statutes are preserved.
Disclaimer: The information contained in this document is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion. No part of this document should be relied upon or used as a substitute for consultation with qualified legal professionals. Legal Parihar expressly disclaims any and all liability for any loss, damage, or harm arising from reliance on the information contained herein, whether due to errors, omissions, negligence, or any other cause.