In this writ petition, the Bombay High Court examined the validity of Rule 7(2) of the DRT (Procedure) Rules regarding court fees for appeals under Section 30. The bench held that no case existed to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction as the rule was not in conflict with the statute or the Constitution.
Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.135 OF 2004
Shri Shyamsundar Dagdulala Marda .. Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India & Others .. Respondents
Ms.Kavita Pawar i/b Mr.Sanjay Kshirsagar for the
petitioner
Mr.S.S.Pakale for respondent nos.4 to 6
CORAM : J.N.PATEL &
S.J.KATHAWALA, JJ.
DATED : 6TH OCTOBER, 2008
P.C.:
1. In this petition, the petitioner is
challenging the validity of Rule 7(2) of the Debt
Recovery Tribunal Procedure Rules which provides
court fees for the appeal to be filed u/s 30 of the
Debt Recovery Tribunal Act.
2. We find that no case is made out to invoke
our extraordinary Jurisdiction in the matter as
2
Rule 7(2) of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure)
Rules, 1993 is not in conflict either with the
statute or with provisions in the Constitution of
India.
3. Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
( J.N. PATEL, J )
( S.J. KATHAWALA, J )
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Rule 7(2) of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, prescribing court fees under Section 30 of the DRT Act, is in conflict with the statute or the Constitution.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Shri Shyamsundar Dagdulala Marda
Union of India
J.N. PATEL
S.J. KATHAWALA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court