Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Thursday, 30 July 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2024-12-19 partly_allowed

SANJEEVKUMAR HARAKCHAND KANKARIYA vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Bench: 2 — C.T. Ravikumar, Sanjay Karol

In Brief

A property dispute was referred to mediation under Section 89 of the CPC and amicably settled. The appellant sought full refund of court fees under Section 16 of the Central Court Fees Act, 1870, but received only 50% under the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959. The Supreme Court held that court fees, being governed by Entry 3 of List II (State subject), are properly regulated by state law. The distinction between Lok Adalat (governed by the Central Legal Services Authorities Act with full refund) and mediation (governed by state law with partial refund) is valid. However, in the peculiar facts of this case—amicable settlement and modest fee amount—the Court exercised exceptional jurisdiction to grant full refund to the appellant, while noting this is not binding precedent.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Court Fees Alternate Dispute Resolution Federalism Legislative Competence Statutory Interpretation Harmonious Construction Doctrine of Pith and Substance Mediation Lok Adalat

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login