NARESH KUMAR MITTAL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three writ petitions raise a common question with regard to interpretation of Rule 13 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as =the Security Interest Rules') in the context of the fee applicable for an appeal arising out of an interlocutory application filed in a substantive petition under Section 17 (1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as' the Securitisation Act' ).We shall refer to the facts in WP(C) 520/2009, Naresh Kumar Mittal v. State Bank of India and Others.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the proceedings taken under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act, the petitioner in WP(C) 520/2009 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Securitisation Act. That application was numbered as SA 9/2007. The prescribed fee of Rs 1 lakh was paid on that application. Subsequently, two interlocutory applications numbered as IA No.202/2007 and IA No.203/2007 were also filed. The fee paid on both those applications was Rs 250/- each (although, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the fee payable was only Rs 200/- by virtue of Rule 13(2)(1)(e) of the Security Interest Rules). IA No.202/2007 was allowed. However, IA 203/2007, which was an application for sending disputed documents to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory for testing was dismissed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 23.10.2008. Against the said order dated 23.10.2008,a miscellaneous appeal (MA.../2008) was preferred before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the Securitisation Act. Alongwith this miscellaneous appeal, the petitioner herein paid a fee of Rs 250/-. The Registry of the Appellate Tribunal raised the objection that the fee for an appeal would be Rs 1 lakh and not Rs 250/-. The question of what would be the appropriate fee came up for consideration before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and the same was decided by the order dated 09.01.2009, which is impugned herein. By virtue of the said order, the Appellate Tribunal, relying upon its earlier decision in the case of M/s Hargobind Fashions Pvt. Ltd and Another v. State Bank of Patiala (Inward No.83/2008, decided on 22.04.2008) held that the court fee payable was Rs 1 lakh and not Rs 250/-. Therefore, the petitioner was required to make good the deficient court fee of Rs 99,750/- within three weeks.

(3.) SECTION 17 of the Securitisation Act, while it speaks of the right to make an application against any proceeding under Section 13 (4) thereof, does not in terms refer to any interlocutory application. However, Section 17(7) reads as under:-