MADHUKANT PRANLAL SHAH Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether an appeal filed against an interlocutory order, fee should be paid as per item 4 or item 5 of the Schedule under Rule 7 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (for short, 'the Rules') is the question which arises for determination in this appeal filed by the appellant against order dated 22nd June 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.8375 of 2006 vide which he declared that Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, 'the Act') does not make any distinction between final order and interim order and that if an appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Act, item 5 of the table under subrule (2) of Rule 7 comes into play and amount of court fee becomes payable.

(2.) The appellant original petitioner stood as a guarantor to various loan facilities granted by the respondentbank in favour of one M/s Sukan Chemicals, a partnership firm, which, failed to repay its dues due to severe financial crisis. Therefore, the respondentbank preferred Civil Suit No.6645 of 1989 in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad against the petitioner and others for recovery of its dues. The said suit came to be transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad on coming into force of the Act. The aforesaid Civil Suit came to be allowed by the Tribunal by passing a decree on 9.10.2002 in favour of the respondent bank. Thereafter, the respondentbank filed Recovery Proceeding No.1388 in the Civil Suit.

(3.) The petitioner along with others filed an application, Exhibit D/24 before the Tribunal seeking stay of the recovery proceedings on the ground that one of the creditors, viz. M/s Alchemi Pharma Private Limited filed Insolvency Petition No.2 of 1990 in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad against the petitioner and partners of the firm wherein Interim Official Receiver was appointed to manage and administer the properties of the firm and the petitioner and the insolvency petition was pending. The said application was rejected by the Recovery Officer vide order dated 22nd November 2004 by holding that unless the insolvency petition has been finally adjudicated holding the debtors as insolvents, the recovery proceedings cannot be deferred.