CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2014) 02 KAR CK 0354

Sri. A. Ramachandra Setty vs The Chief Manager, The Federal Bank Ltd. and Others

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 14 February 2014

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.S. Bopanna, J
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 1970/2014 (GM-DRT)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 344 words

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 29.08.2013 at Annexure-B to the petition.

2.

The petitioner was the appellant in an appeal filed u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (''DRT'' for short). During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner had filed a memo seeking to withdraw the appeal as according to the petitioner the matter had been settled. In that view, the petitioner had sought for refund of the Court fee that had been paid on the appeal. The Tribunal has rejected the request and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Tribunal was not justified. It is his case that by the notification dated 15.05.2013 issued by the Ministry of Finance, the power available under Sub-section 2 of Section 36 R/w Sub-section (3A) of Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (''RDDB Act'' for short) is exercised and a provision has been made for refund of the Court fee. It is his contention that the said notification is to be made applicable by the DRT. Therefore, in the present circumstance when the appeal which had been filed before the DRT was being withdrawn, a similar consideration ought to have been made by the DRT for refund of the Court fee is the further contention.

4.

Having considered the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the notification at Annexure-C would indicate that the same is by invoking the power under the RDDB Act and a specific provision has been made therein. The petition filed u/s 17 is under the SARFAESI Act.

5.

In that view, when there is no provision made with regard to the refund of Court fee in respect of the appeals filed under the SARFAESI Act, the Tribunal was justified in passing the order dated 29.08.2013 which is impugned herein. Therefore, I see no reason to entertain this petition.

The petition is accordingly disposed of.