Dismissed

Mallidi Srinivasa Reddy v. State Bank of India, Commercial Branch

Telangana HC6 Aug 2014WP/22101/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Petitioner challenged a DRAT order directing him to deposit Rs. 30,000 court fee as a tenant invoking Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Act. The Court held that Rule 8 of the DRAT Rules does not differentiate between parties. Consequently, the order was upheld as lawful. The Writ Petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition challenging the DRAT order directing payment of Rs. 30,000 court fee was dismissed. No order as to costs.

Mallidi Srinivasa Reddy Vs State Bank of India… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.22101 OF 2014

¶4

ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶5

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed to declare the order, dated 24.07.2014, in Tender No.100 of 2014 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (DRAT) directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards Court fee, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, set aside the same.

¶6

2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that Rule 8 of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1994 (for short, ‘the Rules’) has no application to the case of the petitioner, because he is not the borrower and as he is only a tenant of the land, there is no need for him to pay the Court fee and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

¶7

3. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank contended that Rule 8 of the Rules does not differentiate between the borrower or guarantor or third party; that every person, who filed an appeal before DRAT, has to pay the Court fee as per sub rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Rules; that there is no error apparent on the face of the record so as to interfere with order of the DRAT and hence, he prays to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶8

4. Petitioner herein filed an application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, ‘the Act’), before Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) for recovery of debt. That application was dismissed. Any person,

¶9

aggrieved by the order of DRT, can make an appeal before DRAT as contemplated under Section 20 of the Act. When the petitioner invoked the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the appellate Tribunal directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards Court fee. Court fee prescribed under Rule 8 of the Rules, reads as follows:

¶10

8 (1) “Every memorandum of appeal under Section 20 of the Act shall be accompanied with a fee provided in subrule (2) and such fee may be remitted either in the form of crossed demand draft drawn on a nationalized bank in favour of the Registrar and payable at the station where the Registrar’s office is situated or remitted through a crossed Indian Postal Order drawn in favour of the Registrar and payable in Central Post Office of the station where the Appellate Tribunal is located.

¶11

(2) The amount of fee payable in respect of appeal under Section 20 shall be as follows:

¶12

Amount of debt Amount of fees payable due

¶13

1………………… 2…………………. 3. Rupees 30 lakh Rs.30,000 or more”

¶14

So, Rule 8 of the Rules does not differentiate between the borrower or third party or guarantor. Whoever files an appeal under Section 20 of the Act has to pay the Court fee as prescribed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Rules. That is the reason why the appellate Tribunal has rightly directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards Court fee and that order needs no interference by this Court. Therefore, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶15

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶16

_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶17

______________ JUSTICE ANIS AUGUST 06, 2014 YVL

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶19

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.22101 OF 2014