AMEENA SALIM Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal addresses an important issue regarding the procedure to be followed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) while considering the challenge raised under Sec. 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002. The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (in short 'SIE Rules) prescribed different table of fees for challenge to be raised under Sec. 17 of the SARFAESI Act. It is appropriate to refer Rule 13 of SIE Rules, which reads as follows;

(2.) The Registrar of the Tribunal noted that the appellant is guarantor and therefore, the appellant has to pay higher slab of the fees prescribed for entertaining such challenge under Sec. 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Aggrieved by that, the appellant herein invoked the remedy under Rule 5(5) of the Debt Recovery Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1993 before the Presiding Officer concerned. The Presiding Officer affirmed the order of the Registrar. The challenge has been made before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge relegated the appellant to invoke appellate remedy under Sec. 18 of the SARFAESI Act before the Appellate Tribunal.

(3.) The Debt Recovery Tribunal Procedure Rules prescribes various procedures regarding filing scrutiny of application etc. In Rule 5, it is stipulated that if the Registrar raised an objection noting defects, an appeal would lie before the Presiding Officer and the Presiding Officer will take a decision in the chamber and that decision is final. It is appropriate to refer Rule 5 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1993, which reads as follows;