ORDER : M. Sundar, J. 1. Mr. R. Amizhdhu, learned counsel on record for sole petitioner and Ms. S. Gayathri, learned counsel on record for sole respondent are before me. 2. Both learned counsel submit in unison that the dispute with respect to the arbitration award under challenge in the captioned OP has been settled out of Court between the parties. Learned counsel for petitioner also seeks permission to withdraw captioned OP as settled out of Court. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner has filed a memo dated 02.03.2021 signed by authorized signatory of the petitioner company and the counsel, which is as follows: 4. This takes us to request of the petitioner counsel for refund of full court fee as this is a matter settled out of Court without taking recourse to modes adumbrated under Section 89 of 'The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ('CPC' for brevity). In this regard, law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in The High Court of Judicature at Madras v. M.C. Subramaniam and Ors., reported in AIR Online 2021 SC 77) is applicable. Relevant paragraphs in M.C. Subramaniam's case are paragraphs 26 and 27 and the same read as follows: 26. Thus, even though a strict construction of the terms of Section 89, CPC and 69-A of the 1955 Act may not encompass such private negotiations and settlements between the parties, we emphasize that the participants in such settlements will be entitled to the same benefits as those who have been referred to explore alternate dispute settlement methods under Section 89, CPC. Indeed, we find it puzzling that the petitioner should be so vehemently opposed to granting such benefit. Though the Registry/State Government will be losing a one-time court fee in the short term, they will be saved the expense and opportunity cost of managing an endless cycle of litigation in the long term. It is therefore in their own interest to allow the respondent No. 1's claim.' '27. Thus, in our view, the High Court was correct in holding that Section 89 of the CPC and Section 69-A of the 1955 Act be interpreted liberally. It is therefore in their own interest to allow the respondent No. 1's claim.' '27. Thus, in our view, the High Court was correct in holding that Section 89 of the CPC and Section 69-A of the 1955 Act be interpreted liberally. In view of this broad purposive construction, we affirm the High Court's conclusion, and hold that Section 89 of CPC shall cover, and the benefit of Section 69-A of the 1955 Act shall also extend to, all methods of out-of-court dispute settlement between parties that the Court subsequently finds to have been legally arrived at. This would, thus, cover the present controversy, wherein a private settlement was arrived at, and a memo to withdraw the appeal was filed before the High Court. In such a case as well, the appellant, i.e., respondent No. 1 herein would be entitled to refund of court fee.' 5. Therefore, Registry is directed to refund full Court fee by way of an instrument in favour of the petitioner company albeit on all requisite procedural formalities in this regard being complied with. This process of refund of full court fee shall be completed by the Registry as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within four weeks from today i.e., on or before 30.03.2021. Captioned OP dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected application is closed.