Decided on September 06,2007



M.C.Jain, - (1.) THE appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 13.8.2004 and 23.8.2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Chandigarh. He had filed an appeal against the order of the Recovery Officer, dated 25.5.2004, rejecting his objections related to the auction of certain property in execution of Recovery Certificate issued in O.A. No. 750/96 (Old No. 212/95). He preferred appeal under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act before the Tribunal below. THE impugned orders dated 13.8.2004 and 23.8.2004 relate thereto. By the former order, his prayer for exemption of Court fee was declined and he was allowed one week's time to deposit the requisite Court fee. As the requisite Court fee was not paid, by order dated 23.8.2004 the appeal was dismissed for want of requisite Court fee. THEre against, the present appeal has been filed.
(2.) I have heard Mr. Sanjiv Gupta for the appellant and Mr. Jagjit Singh Vedi for The 2nd respondent. The argument from the side of the appellant is that he is neither borrower nor guarantor nor mortgagor in relation to the loan in question. Rather, he is a third-party whose objection was that he was bona fide purchaser of the property. It was different from the property which was subject matter of the Court auction in relation to the recovery certificate pertaining to the aforesaid O.A. In the garb of the same, the property of which he was the bona fide purchaser was being proceeded against. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no amount had been or could be determined to be due against him and as such there could be no question of his being required to pay Court fee as per Clause 5 of Rule 7(2) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').
(3.) ON the other hand, the argument of the learned Counsel the 2nd respondent is that for the purpose of payment of Court fee in an appeal under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, there is no distinction whether it is by the borrower or a third-party. The Court fee, according to him, was rightly demanded by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal below as per Clause 5 of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Rules.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.