AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present case was heard and reserved for orders on the issue of court fee vide order dated 06.01.2026 of this Appellate Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted the Hon'ble High Court has passed the order in Writ-C No. 1634/2019-Jai Gopal Kansal & Anr. Vs. Indian Bank, wherein it has been held that if the appeal is filed against an order rejecting the application for setting aside an ex-parte decree, as the same shall be considered as misc. appeal, the said misc. appeal was not filed against any decree, but was against an order. The Section 21 of the Act contemplates that the amount of pre-deposit has to be made, when the appeal is filed against the amount of debts so due as determined by the Tribunal under Section 19. Learned counsel also submitted that the present appeal has been filed against the order passed in M.A., therefore, no full court fee is required in the present case.
Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and considering the material available on record, it transpires that an Original Application was filed by the Bank against the appellant and others, in which the appellants were arrayed as defendants. The Appellants did not appear despite service of summons before the Tribunal below nor filed their written statement/reply, therefore, the OA was decreed vide ex-parte judgment dated 19.06.2024.
Consequent upon the judgment, the recovery proceedings were initiated against the appellants, so the appellants filed recall application in the year 2024 u/s 22(2)(g) of the RDB Act, 1993 for recalling the ex-parte judgment dated 19.06.2024. The said application was disposed off vide order dated 27.09.2024 with direction as under:-
"After considering the situation of this petition, in the opinion of the Tribunal, a cost should be imposed on the applicant of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only).
The applicant shall deposit the cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) within a period of 30 days from today in State Legal Services Authority, Uttarakhand. The applicant shall also liable to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) in relation to the fee of Ld. Counsel for respondent, who has appeared today before the Tribunal on behalf of respondent- Bank within a period of 30 days from today to the respondent- Bank and shall submit receipt in cost and also fee of Ld. Counsel for respondent bank within a period of 45 days from today on record."
It is thus clear that though the order was passed in misc. recall application, but virtually it was to set aside the ex-parte judgment dated 19.06.2024. As such there is no proceeding pending before the Tribunal below. In the present case, the matter has been decided holding the appellants liable to pay the dues of the Bank, thus the proceedings before the Tribunal below have finally been terminated and the amount of dues has been determined. In such set and circumstances of the matter, the view taken by this Tribunal earlier in Appeal Sr. No. 146/2009 -Vikram Singh V/S Union Bank of India, Decided on 05.04.2011 is relevant and also covers the present controversy.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that all the proceedings have been terminated before the Tribunal below, the present appeal cannot be treated as misc. appeal but it is a regular appeal, which attracts the court fee as prescribed under Rule 8(2) of the DRAT (Procedures) Rules, 1994. Thus, the appellants are held liable to pay the court fee in view of the said rule. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to pay the deficit Court fee of Rs. 29,750/- on or before the next date for entertaining the present appeal.
List this case on 02.04.2026 for compliance. It is made clear that if the appellant does not deposit the court fee as directed above by the next date, the appeal shall stand automatically dismissed for want of court fee without further reference to this Court.