After ‘Prime Pack’ Trademark Settlement, Delhi HC Says Section 16 Mandates Full ₹1,97,874 Court-Fee Refund

The appellant filed a commercial suit alleging infringement and passing off, and paid court fee of ₹1,97,874.

During the suit, the parties entered into a written settlement, which the Single Judge recorded and made part of the decree.

The Judge directed refund of only 50% of the fee.

The appellant appealed solely against that direction, seeking a full refund under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, as substituted for Delhi.

Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, as substituted for Delhi by notification dated 6 March 2026, provides that where parties amicably settle a suit or appeal and the court disposes of it as settled or compromised, the plaintiff or counter-claimant “shall be entitled” to a certificate for refund of the “full amount” of the fee paid.

The mandatory language leaves no discretion to grant only a partial refund once those conditions are met.

Section 96(3) CPC bars an appeal from a decree passed with the parties’ consent, but does not bar an appeal challenging a separate statutory entitlement that was not part of the consent terms.

In M/s Hitech Enterprises v. M/s Modern Construction Company Delhi, RFA(COMM) 305/2025, decided 21 September 2026, the Division Bench held that full refund under the substituted Section 16 is a substantive entitlement and that the Court should direct the refund when disposing of a settled matter.

The appeal did not challenge the settlement or consent decree; it challenged only the separate decision on the appellant’s statutory refund application. Section 96(3) CPC therefore did not apply, and the appeal was within the period prescribed by Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The parties had settled the dispute and the suit was disposed of in accordance with that settlement, satisfying both conditions under Section 16.

Because the provision mandates refund of the full fee, the Single Judge’s direction for a 50% refund based on the “overall facts and circumstances” could not stand. The Division Bench’s decision in Hitech Enterprises supported that conclusion.

The Registry was directed to issue a Section 16 certificate within one week, and the Collector or competent officer to release the amount within four weeks of presentation, subject to verification and credit for any amount already refunded.