BANK OF BARODA Vs. ANIRUDH JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside of the order dtd. 17/5/2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), SAS Nagar, Mohali in Civil Suit titled as 'Bank of Baroda Vs. Anirudh Jain and another' vide which the valuation of the Court fee as assessed by the petitioner/plaintiff was rejected and instead it was directed to pay advalorem Court fee as per the amount claimed in the suit.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is against the statutory provisions and thus is patently illegal. He has further contended that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner was a banking company as defined under Sec. 5(c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (for short, 'the Act') and still further ignored that the loan advanced by the petitioner to the respondents was a "secured loan or advance" within the meaning of Sec. 5(n) of the Act. Therefore, since the loan was a claim under the provisions of the Act, the petitioner had affixed the right Court fee as per Article 19 of the Second Schedule to the Court Fees Act, 1870 (as applicable to the State of Punjab). Learned counsel still further submits that the Trial Court has erroneously relied upon Sec. 45B of the Act which pertains to the jurisdiction of the High Court in liquidation proceedings and not to recovery of debts by a banking company, hence, the Trial Court could not have directed the petitioner to make good the deficiency of Court fee by affixing the payable advalorem Court fee as per the amount claimed in the suit.

(3.) The moot question which arises for consideration of this Court is as to what is the meaning or scope of the expression "claims for money" as appearing in Article 19 of Second Schedule to Court Fees Act, 1870 (as applicable to the State of Punjab).