M/S Prime Pack India vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.

$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 27.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010513922026
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 291/2026, CM APPL. 73841/2026, CM APPL.
73842/2026 & CM APPL. 73843/2026
M/S PRIME PACK INDIA
A Proprietorship firm
Having its address at:
G-116, Dawa Bazar,
Indore-452001 (M.P.)
Through its Proprietor
MR. Mehul Sawjiani. …. Appellant

Through: Mr. Sanskar Nigam with Mr. Shivam
Mishra, Advocates.

versus

1. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
Through the Standing Counsel(Civil),
Delhi High Court, New Delhi. ….Respondent No.1

2. M/S. PRIME PACK
Through its Proprietor:
Mr. Prince Jindal,
At: KH No. 63/25/1,
Lane No.14, Shri Ram Marg,
Tikri Kalan, New Delhi-110041.

Also at: H. No.90-B, KH No.458, Bindapur Road,
Bindapur, New Delhi-110059. ….Respondent No.2

Through: Ms. Avni Singh, Advocate.
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS)(COMM) 291/2026 Page 1 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA SAHAY SAXENA

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. The present appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts
Act, 2015 read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 is preferred
by the plaintiff in CS(COMM) 673/2026 and assails paragraph 4 of the
order dated 23.09.2026 (impugned order) passed by the learned Single
Judge, whereby while recording a settlement between the parties and
decreeing the suit in its terms, the Registry has been directed to refund only
50% of the court fee of Rs. 1,97,874/- paid by the appellant, “bearing in mind
the overall facts and circumstances” . The appellant does not question the
decree. Its challenge is confined to the quantum of the refund, and it seeks
refund of the full court fee under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, as
substituted for Delhi by the notification dated 06.03.2026.
2. Briefly stated, the appellant, a proprietorship concern, instituted
CS(COMM) 673/2026 in May 2026 against respondent no.2 seeking a decree
of permanent injunction restraining infringement of its registered device mark
and trade name “PRIME PACK INDIA/PrimePackIndia” , passing off,
rendition of accounts, delivery-up and damages, on account of respondent
no.2’s use of the identical/deceptively similar name “Prime Pack” in relation
to industrial packaging machinery, coding solutions and allied goods. The suit
was instituted on payment of court fee of Rs. 1,97,874/-.
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS)(COMM) 291/2026 Page 2 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing

3. By an ex-parte ad-interim order dated 02.07.2026, respondent no.2 was
restrained, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (CPC), from using the marks “Prime Pack” , “Prime Pack Delhi” or
any deceptively similar variant across all physical and digital platforms, and
a Local Commissioner was appointed under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC. The
Local Commissioner executed the commission at the premises of respondent
no.2 and filed his report.
4. During the pendency of the suit, the parties amicably settled all disputes
by a written Settlement Agreement dated 08.09.2026 , executed on e-stamp
paper. The appellant thereupon filed I.A. 26239/2026 under Order XXIII Rule
3 CPC for recording of the settlement and passing of a decree in its terms, and
I.A. 26240/2026 under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 seeking refund
of the full court fee.
5. By the impugned order dated 23.09.2026, the learned Single Judge
recorded that the settlement agreement was duly signed by the parties and
placed on record, decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, directed that the
settlement shall form part of the decree, and disposed of both applications and
the suit. On the court fee, paragraph 4 of the order reads as under:
“4. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances, the registry is
directed to refund the 50% of the Court fees paid by the plaintiff to the
plaintiff with due verifications.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned direction
neither refers to Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 nor assigns any reason
for declining full refund; that the substituted Section 16 confers an unqualified
statutory entitlement to refund of the full fee on a settlement; and that a
Division Bench of this Court has so held in M/s Hitech Enterprises v. M/s
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS)(COMM) 291/2026 Page 3 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing

Modern Construction Company Delhi , RFA(COMM) 305/2025, decided on
21.09.2026. The balance sum withheld is Rs. 98,937/-. Respondent no.2,
whose rights stand settled by the decree, has no interest in the refund of court
fee paid by the appellant.
7. The controversy turns on Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, as
substituted for Delhi by the notification dated 06.03.2026, whereby the
erstwhile Section 16-A stands repealed. The substituted provision reads as
under:
“Section 16 - Refund of Fee. Where the parties to a suit or appeal, at
any stage of such suit or appeal, settle their dispute amicably, with or
without the intervention of the Court and with or without invoking any
of the modes of settlement of dispute, referred to in Section 89 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and the said suit including
Counter-claim, if any, or appeal is disposed of as settled/compromised
by the court, the plaintiff/Counter - claimant shall be entitled to a
certificate from the Court authorizing him to receive back from the
collector/competent officer, the full amount of fee, paid in respect of
such plaint/counter claim.”
8. At the outset, the appeal is maintainable. The appellant does not assail
the settlement or the decree, and the bar of Section 96(3) CPC against an
appeal from a decree passed with the consent of the parties is therefore not
attracted. The grievance is confined to paragraph 4, which deals with an
entitlement conferred by statute, one that the parties could neither create nor
waive by consent, and which was decided on a separate application, I.A.
26240/2026, that formed no part of the consent terms. The appeal, instituted
on 06.10.2026 against an order dated 23.09.2026, is also within the period of
sixty days prescribed by Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
9. On merits, the statute leaves no room for doubt. Section 16 prescribes
two conditions: first, that the parties settle their dispute amicably at any stage
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS)(COMM) 291/2026 Page 4 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing

of the suit or appeal, with or without the intervention of the Court and whether
or not through any mode under Section 89 CPC; and second, that the suit is
disposed of by the Court as settled/compromised. Once both are met, the
plaintiff “shall be entitled” to a certificate for “the full amount” of the fee
paid. The expression “shall” is mandatory and the quantum is “full”; the
provision leaves no discretion to refund a part, to weigh the facts and
circumstances of the case, or to condition the refund on anything beyond
administrative verification of payment. Both conditions are admittedly
satisfied, as recorded in paragraphs 2, 3 and 6 of the impugned order itself.
The substituted Section 16 came into force on 06.03.2026, well before the suit
was instituted in May 2026, so no question of retrospective operation arises;
and with the erstwhile Section 16-A repealed, no provision survives under
which a part refund can be directed. A Court cannot read into a statute a
limitation which the legislature has withheld. A direction founded on “overall
facts and circumstances”, without reference to Section 16 and without any
reason, cannot dilute a statutory entitlement.
10. The view we take is fortified by the Division Bench decision in Hitech
Enterprises (supra), rendered on 21.09.2026, two days before the impugned
order. Reading the substituted provision plainly, the Division Bench held that
full refund of court fee, upon a suit, counter-claim or appeal being disposed
of as settled or compromised, is a substantive statutory entitlement; that no
separate application ought to be required; and that the Court, while disposing
of a settled matter, shall direct refund and issue a certificate authorising the
party to receive back the full amount. We respectfully concur. That decision
binds the learned Single Judge, and it does not appear to have been brought
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS)(COMM) 291/2026 Page 5 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing

to the notice of the learned Single Judge. The direction in paragraph 4 for
refund of only 50% is contrary to Section 16 and to the said decision, and
cannot be sustained.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The decree passed in terms of the
Settlement Agreement dated 08.09.2026 and the remaining directions in the
impugned order dated 23.09.2026 are left undisturbed. Paragraph 4 of the
impugned order is set aside and modified , and the appellant is held entitled
to refund of the full court fee of Rs. 1,97,874/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety-
Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy-Four only) paid in CS(COMM)
673/2026.
12. The Registry shall, within one week from today, issue to the appellant
a certificate under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 authorising it to
receive back the said amount from the Collector/competent officer, who shall
release the same expeditiously, and in any case within four weeks of
presentation of the certificate, after verification of payment. If any part of the
court fee, including the 50% directed by the impugned order, has already been
refunded, the certificate shall be issued and the release made only for the
balance, so that the appellant receives the full amount, and no more, in all; the
balance shall be Rs. 98,937/- if the refund of 50% has already been made.
13. Any pending applications stand disposed off.

VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J

NISHA SAHAY SAXENA, J
OCTOBER 27, 2026/jd
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS)(COMM) 291/2026 Page 6 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing