DHILEEP Vs. DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT, if any, is the Court fee payable on an appeal to the Debts Recovery tribunal, against an order of its Recovery officer, deciding a claim or objection to attachment or sale? w. P. (C) No. 14165 of 2006

(2.) ON the basis of different recovery certificates issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, for short, the "tribunal", constituted under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, hereinafter referred to as the "rdb act", proceedings were initiated against the properties involved in those cases. Petitioners who are not the debtors in terms of the recovery certificates, asserted independent title and filed claim petitions invoking Rule 11 (4) of the IInd Schedule of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the "schedule Rules". The Recovery Officer dismissed those petitions. Petitioners filed appeals under Section 30 (1) of the RDB Act. The Tribunal's Registry overruled the petitioners' answer to its objections on the question of Court fee. The petitioners' appeals to the Tribunal against that, stand dismissed as per the impugned orders. W. P. (C) No. 18843 of 2006

(3.) THE petitioner, a Municipality, on the ground that property tax is a first charge, under Section 237 of the Kerala Municipality act, 1994, filed a claim petition under rule 11 of the Schedule Rules asserting priority in matter of liabilities, in preference to the Bank, the holder of a recovery certificate. That was dismissed by the Recovery officer. The appeal filed by the petitioner to the Tribunal has not been entertained on the ground of insufficiency of court fee for reasons similar to those stated in the order impugned in W. P. (C) No. 14165 of 2006.