Delhi High Court held court fees must not operate as a deterrent to justice, granting relief where refund was denied. The Division Bench ruled that dismissal on day one for TDSAT jurisdiction, without merits adjudication, warranted refund of fees.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court recently remarked that the requirement for litigants to pay court fees to file cases should not be viewed as a penalty that might deter individuals from seeking justice in court.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain made this observation while granting relief to a litigant who was denied a refund of court fees following the rejection of its suit.
Significantly, the suit was dismissed on the first day of hearing without consideration of its merits, solely on the basis that the litigant should have approached the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) for resolution.
Factual Background of the Case:
RI Networks Private Limited filed a commercial suit seeking recovery of outstanding dues, damages, and injunctive relief against World Phone Internet Services Private Limited and others. The plaint was valued at over Rs 8.84 crore, and court fees of approximately Rs 8.7 lakh were paid.
The Single Judge rejected the plaint at the threshold, holding that since both principal parties were telecom service providers, the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) under Sections 14 and 15 of the TRAI Act. Consequently, the suit was held to be barred by law and the plaintiff was relegated to TDSAT.
Subsequently, RI Networks sought a refund of court fees, which was denied by the Single Judge on the ground that the rejection was under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and not under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. This led to the present appeal before the Division Bench.
In December 2025, RI Networks’ application for a refund of the court fees was also dismissed. This prompted RI Networks to appeal to the Division Bench, asserting that since its suit was not dismissed on its merits, the court fees should be refunded.
ALSO READ: Bar Council of Kerala Declares Protest Against Proposed Hike in Court fees
Arguments of Parties :
The appellant, RI Networks, contended that:
- The rejection of the plaint was essentially jurisdictional in nature and akin to an order under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.
- Even if treated as rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, refund of court fees ought to be granted as there was no adjudication on merits.
- Reliance was placed on Dr. (Col.) Subhash Chandra Talwar v. T. Choitram and Sons and Amit Jain v. Mahavir International Pvt. Ltd., which recognised refund of court fees where litigants are compelled to approach another competent forum.
The respondents argued that:
- The Single Judge’s decision involved findings on jurisdiction and parties, amounting to adjudication.
- The appeal against rejection of the plaint had already been withdrawn, and the issue of refund should not reopen settled findings.
- Refund of court fees was a matter strictly between the court and the appellant.
Analysis of the Court:
The Division Bench, comprising held that:
- The rejection of the plaint was purely on jurisdictional grounds, with no examination of the substantive merits of the dispute.
- Whether the rejection fell under Order VII Rule 10 or Order VII Rule 11 CPC was immaterial for deciding refund of court fees.
- Relying on Supreme Court and coordinate bench precedents, the Court reiterated that court fees are not meant to penalise litigants who approach an incorrect forum on legal advice.
- Denial of refund in such cases would discourage bona fide litigants and undermine access to justice.
The Court emphasised a liberal and empathetic interpretation of fiscal statutes, especially when a party is compelled to initiate fresh proceedings before a statutory tribunal like TDSAT
The High Court subsequently ordered the refund of Rs 8.7 lakh in court fees that the litigant had paid to file the suit within eight weeks.. The Bench emphasized that the Court should adopt an empathetic stance in such instances.
The Court stated,
“Court fee is not meant as a penalty upon the litigant to approach the Court. The Court is to always take an empathetic view towards a litigant, especially when a litigant has been relegated to approach the appropriate forum and there has admittedly been no adjudication on the merits of the dispute,”
The Court concluded,
“In the present case, the suit has been heard on the first date itself, as informed by the ld. Counsel, and the plaint was rejected. The Plaintiff therein was then relegated to TDSAT. Under these circumstances, in the facts of this case, the Court is of the view that the court fee deserves to be refunded. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17th December, 2025, is set aside,”
Advocates Tanmaya Mehta and Karan Nagrath represented the appellant, RI Networks Pvt. Ltd., while Advocate Aditya Vaibhav Singh appeared for the respondents.
Case Title: RI Networks Private Limited Vs World Phone Internet Services Private Limited & Ors.
Read Attachment:
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
