The DRAT allowed the petitioner bank's application for refund of court fee without requiring a joint application from both parties, as the matter was settled in the Lok Adalath. Directed registry to refund Rs.31,500/- to the bank.
Requested documents returned to petitioner; Rs.31,500/- court fee refunded to applicant bank.
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.
Fair order
20.05.2024 MA 86 & 87/2024 in OA 7/2016
Mr. C. N. Baby, Counsel appeared for the petitioner Bank.
MA No.87/2024: Petition allowed. The Registry is directed to return the documents marked as Exhs.A4,A6, A8, A10, A12, A14 and A16 to the counsel for the petitioner bank with proper acknowledgment.
MA No. 86/2024 : This petition is filed by the petitioner bank praying for refund of court fee in view of the settlement. The Registry of this Tribunal has made endorsement in the petition that as per Rule 5 of the Debt Recovery Tribunals (Refund of court fee) Rules, 2013, the party shall file joint application for refund of court fee indicating the details of settlement and that no joint application is filed by both the parties. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner bank that since the matter was settled in the Lok Adalath held on 10.06.2023 in which both the parties have signed the settlement memo, joint application for refund of court fee may not be necessary.
It is not in dispute that the matter was referred to Lok Adalath for settlement and that the matter was settled in the Lok Adalath held on 10.06.2023 in view of the compromise arrived at by both the parties. Both the parties have signed the compromise memo.
Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay titled as Yes Bank Limited Vs. Union of India &Ors. 2023 SCC Online Bom 1156 wherein it is held as follows :
“17. For the above reasons, we would read down the Rule to mean that once the DRT itself on application of mind has permitted the applicant in an Original Application refund of Court fees, and when the entitlement for refund of Court fees itself has been fixed by a judicial order, it would not be permissible for the Registrar of the DRT to nonetheless insist that a joint application ought to be presented for refund of Court fees. However, this would not mean that where in case if the Registrar has any doubt on materials that the applicant in the Original Application does not himself/itself become entitled for refund of Court fees and/or if the judicial order does not grant a clear refund of Court fees to the plaintiff alone, in such cases, certainly requirement of joint application can be insisted, as in such cases the complexion of the refund application itself would be completely different. However, to blanketly read Rule 5(1) to mean that in every case a joint application is necessary for grant of refund of court fees, would not only defeat the entitlement to the refund of Court fees, but is also likely to be contrary to the judicial order passed by the DRT/DRAT granting refund of Court fees.”
Further Hon’ble High Court of Madras has held in E. K. Jayachandran & another Vs. The Registrar, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal & another that since the issue has been settled between the parties before the Lok Adalath, the Hon’ble DRAT should have passed orders giving direction or certification enabling the 1st respondent in whose favour the court fee has been paid by the petitioners and that the impugned order of the Hon’ble DRATrefusing to exercise the power available or caused
2
upon it is unsustainable. In the above case direction was given for refund of court fee paid by the petitioners.
In view of the settlement of the matter before the Lok Adalath and in the light of the dictum laid down in the aforesaid judgments, this Tribunal is of the considered view that filing of joint application by both parties is not necessary and the petitioner bank is entitled for refund of court fee. In view of the forgoing reasons, the petition is allowed. The Registry is directed to refund court fee of Rs.31,500/- as per Rule 4(b) of the Debt Recovery Tribunals (Refund of court fee) Rules, 2013 to the applicant bank.
Presiding Officer
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a joint application for refund of court fee is mandatory when the matter has been settled in the Lok Adalath.
Whether the petitioner bank is entitled to the refund of court fee paid under Rule 4(b) of the Debt Recovery Tribunals (Refund of court fee) Rules, 2013.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Yes Bank Limited Vs. Union of India &Ors.Followed¶7
2023 SCC Online Bom 1156 · Who else cites this
E. K. Jayachandran & another Vs. The Registrar, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal & anotherFollowed¶9
E. K. Jayachandran & another Vs. The Registrar, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal & another
Petitioner Bank
Union of India
Presiding Officer
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
