NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has held that court fees are not meant to operate as a penalty on litigants and should not deter parties from approaching the judiciary, especially when a case is dismissed at the threshold without any adjudication on merits.
A Division Bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain made the observation while granting relief to RI Networks Private Limited, which had been denied a refund of court fees after its suit was rejected at the very first hearing.
The suit had been dismissed solely on the ground of maintainability, with the Court holding that the appropriate forum for the dispute was the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT). No examination of the merits of the dispute had taken place.
Despite this, the single-judge Bench that dismissed the suit in November 2023 did not direct a refund of the court fee. A subsequent application filed by RI Networks in December 2023 seeking refund of the ₹6.7 lakh court fee was also rejected, prompting the company to file an appeal.
Allowing the appeal on January 23, the Division Bench observed that courts must adopt an empathetic approach in such cases, particularly where litigants are merely redirected to the correct forum.
“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 Bench said.
RI Networks, an internet service provider, had originally filed a recovery suit worth ₹6.14 lakh against five service providers. The High Court found merit in its argument that since the plaint was rejected on the first day itself and not on merits, the court fee ought to have been refunded.
Setting aside the order dated December 17, 2023, the Division Bench directed that the court fee be refunded to RI Networks within eight weeks.
Advocates Tanmaya Mehta and Karan Nagrath represented the appellant, while advocate Aditya Vaibhav Singh appeared for the respondents.