Surinder K. Mahajan vs The Hindu Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Anr.

This Chamber Appeal is filed to impugn the order dated 26.12.2025 passed by the Registrar of this Tribunal in Appeal (EDRAT) No.2175/2025 arising out of M.A. No.144/2017 in S.A No.273/2016 titled as Surinder K. Mahajan V. The Hindu Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. & another. Vide the impugned order dated 26.12.2025, the Registrar of this Tribunal has under Rule 6(4) of the DRAT (Procedure) Rules, 1994 declined to register the Appeal (EDRAT) No.2175/2025 filed by the appellant Surinder K. Mahajan due to non-compliance of the defects in pointed out by the Registry in the appeal.

The appellant had filed the above Appeal (EDRAT) No.2175/2025 under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act to challenge the order dated 23.10.2025 dismissing his application bearing M.A. No.144/20217 for seeking necessary directions to the respondent bank to release the title documents of the mortgaged property along with other relevant documents in compliance of the order dated 04.08.2016 passed by the DRT in S.A. No.273/2016. Vide the order dated 04.08.2026, the DRT had disposed of the S.A. No.273/2026 filed by the appellant with direction to the appellant to pay Rs.1,54,78,233/- with simple interest @11% p.a. on reducing balance from 01.05.2013 along with cost of Rs25,000/- and ordered the bank to return the appellant’s documents upon compliance. On scrutiny, the Registry of this Tribunal had certain objections and for removal of those objections listed the matter before the Registrar on 16.12.2025. One of the objections raised by the Registry was with regard to the deficit court fee of Rs.41,000/- as the appellant had paid only Rs.250/- as court fee along with the appeal. The counsel for the appellant appeared before the Registrar on 16.12.2025 before the Registrar and undertook to comply with the objections raised by the Registry. Regarding the objection with respect to the court fee, counsel stated that he would file written submissions. The matter was accordingly posted for 22.12.2025 for removal of defects. On 22.12.2025 counsel for the appellant submitted that he has e-filed the documents to cure the defects and undertook to file hard copy thereof during the course of the day. At request of the counsel, the matter was then re-posted to 26.12.2025 for compliance and report of the Registry. On 26.12.2025, when the matter was taken up by the Registrar, it was found that the appellant had not cured all the defects pointed out by the Registry and written submission regarding court fee was also not filed. The counsel for the appellant submitted that he had e-filed the written submissions regarding payment of court fee and undertook to file hard copy thereof but no hard copy was filed by the counsel for the appellant till 1.00 pm on 26.12.2025. Consequently, the Registrar by a detailed order dated 26.12.2025 declined the registration of the Appeal (EDRAT) No.2175/2025 filed by the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant Surinder K. Mahajan has filed the present Chamber Appeal 05/2026 praying for setting aside of the impugned order and for holding that the appeal filed by the appellant falls under Rule 13(2)(e) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and the court fee paid by him is sufficient.

I have gone through the Chamber Appeal No.05/2026. The sum and substance of the contentions of the appellant is that since his challenge in the appeal (EDRAT) No.2175/2025 is against the order dated 23.10.2025 passed by the DRT whereby his application bearing M.A. No.144/2017 seeking direction to the respondent bank to comply with the earlier order passed by the DRT was dismissed and he has not challenged any measures taken by the bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the quantum of amount borrowed by him or the amount of debt due is irrelevant and cannot be a consideration for the purpose of determination of the court fee. Therefore, the amount of Rs.250/- paid by him towards the court fee is sufficient. It is stated that an Appeal bearing No.462/2016 has been filed by the respondent bank against the order dated 04.08.2016 of the DRT which is pending before this Tribunal and no stay has been granted by this Tribunal in that appeal. Contention of the appellant is that he has paid the entire amount as directed by the DRT vide its order dated 04.08.2016 and there is no due against him but the respondent bank has failed to comply with its part of the order dated 04.08.2016 and has not returned the original documents to the appellant. According to the appellant, his appeal falls under category (e) of Rule 13(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, namely, “Any other application by any person” for which the prescribed court fee is only Rs.200/- and since he has paid Rs.250/- towards court fee, his appeal is entitled to be registered.

Rule 13 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 provides for fees to be deposited with applications and appeals under Sections 17 and 18 of the SARFAESI Act which is reproduced as under for the sake of convenience

The perusal of the Appeal bearing (EDRAT) No.2175/2025 filed by the appellant reflects that it is filed under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. It is not an application either under Section 17(6) of the SARFAESI Act seeking direction to the DRT for expeditious disposal of the Application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act or under Section 17-A(2) of the RDB Act seeking transfer of a case pending before one DRT to another. A bare reading of Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act would show that it does not distinguish appeals arising from an order passed by the DRT in a challenge against the measures taken by the bank/FI under the SARFAESI Act or on an application seeking direction to comply with an earlier order passed by the DRT. Contention of the appellant is that he has paid the entire dues of the respondent bank in terms of the order dated 04.08.2016 and nothing is due against him as on date.

Admittedly, the appellant is a borrower. As per the notice dated 18.02.2014 issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act a demand of Rs.1,54,78,233/- was raised by the respondent bank against the appellant. Therefore, Rule 13(2)(b) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 is applicable in the case of the appellant and he is liable to pay a court fee of Rs.41,250/-. Whether or not the appellant has paid the entire amount in terms of the order 04.08.2016 can be considered only once the appeal is entertained. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 26.12.2025 passed by the Registrar of this Tribunal. Appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. However, taking into consideration all facts and circumstances this Tribunal is of the opinion that the appellants should be given one more opportunity to deposit the deficient court fee on appeal and cure other defects, if any, pointed out by the Registry and contest the case on merit. Accordingly, the appellant is granted three weeks to deposit the requisite court fee on appeal and cure other defects, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed. List before the Registrar on 03.06.2026.

Appeal stands disposed of.