Thiruvananthapuram, Oct 26: The Keralam Assembly on Monday passed an amendment to the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, providing that additional court fees collected in cases settled out of court would not be refunded.
The amendment, moved by Chief Minister V D Satheesan, seeks to address practical difficulties in refunding additional court fees paid by litigants in cases settled through alternative dispute resolution under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The bill was initially introduced in the Assembly and referred to the Subject Committee on October 12.
Under the existing arrangement, 70 per cent of the amount collected for the Legal Aid Fund was diverted to the Advocates Welfare Fund and 30 per cent to the Advocates Clerks Welfare Fund.
After setting aside 10 per cent from each fund to provide basic amenities for litigants, the remaining amounts were deposited in the respective funds.
As the money had already been distributed for various purposes, refunding it to litigants had become difficult.
Satheesan said the High Court had asked that Section 76 of the Act be amended to ensure that additional court fees collected in such cases would not be refunded under any circumstances.
Earlier, he had said that the proposed amendment seeks to insert a new Section 76A into the Act, specifying that additional court fees collected in cases settled out of court is not refundable.
However, the amendment will not affect cases in which courts had already ordered refund before the proposed amendments came into force, or cases settled out of court in which judgments had not yet been pronounced, he said.
However, CPI(M) MLA K N Balagopal raised concerns over the amendment, arguing that it could affect litigants’ rights to refunds and potentially raise legal questions concerning central laws.
He pointed out that provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure, the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and the Court Fees Act, 1870, provide for refunds in certain circumstances, including cases resolved through compromise or alternative dispute resolution.
Balagopal questioned whether the amendment could conflict with these provisions and said the bill lacked clarity on how it would affect existing legal safeguards.
He also sought clarification on the possible financial implications and the absence of a detailed financial memorandum.
MLAs P K Praveen and K Rajan also raised concerns over the bill.
Satheesan, however, said the apprehensions raised by the members were not relevant.
The Assembly subsequently passed the bill, including the proposed amendments. (PTI)
