MATHEW ANTONY Vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the 5th respondent in O.A. No. 71/02 filed by the respondent Bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam (Kerala and Lakshadweep). Before the Tribunal, petitioner remained ex parte and the O.A. was allowed by the Tribunal on 19.3.04. According to the petitioner, during the aforesaid period, he was abroad and he came to know of the O.A. only on 4.10.2009. It is stated that thereupon he submitted Ext. Pl application for reviewing/recalling the order allowing the O.A. Along with the said application, he also applied for condonation of delay of 2136 days. By Ext. P3 order of the Tribunal, the delay was condoned as sought for in I.A. No. 2624/09. However, by Ext. P4 order, the Review Petition which was numbered as Review Application No. 3/12, was dismissed by the Tribunal. Challenging Ext. P4 order, petitioner filed appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai which was numbered as No AIR(861/2012) In the appeal, the petitioner remitted only Rs. 250/- as court fee. In Ext. P6 proceedings, the Appellate Tribunal held that the court fee of Rs. 30,000/- is payable under R. 8(2) of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1994 and that the petitioner should pay the balance court fee of Rs. 29,750/- within two weeks.

(2.) In this Original Petition, petitioner is challenging Ext. P6 order and also R. 8(2) of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1994. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that for Ext. P1 application to review the order dated 19.3.2004 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 71/02, the Court fee payable in terms of R. 7(2)(4) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules is Rs. 250/-. It is stated that when the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules prescribed different rates of court fee for different applications, for appeals filed against orders on such petitions, the same basis should be adopted and that it is not permissible to prescribe a uniform court fee based on the amount of debt due. It is on that basis, counsel seeks to invalidate the impugned proceedings.

(3.) Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, occurring in Chapter IV thereof provides for appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. This section reads thus;