V. SINILAL V. UNION OF INDIA

WP(C)/14051/2007

AI Insights

The writ petitions filed by V. Sinilal, M.K. Vijayarajan, and Omana V. Rajan challenged the non-registration of their appeals by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which insisted on payment of court fees based on the valuation of the subject matter of the appeals. The petitioners argued that their appeals should not be subjected to such fees, referencing a previous judgment (Dileep and others Vs. Debt Recovery Tribunal) that supported their position. The court considered the arguments and the relevant legal provisions, particularly focusing on the interpretation of Rule 7 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, in conjunction with Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDBFI Act).

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 679836 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2009
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Dileep and others Vs. Debt Recovery Tribunal (2008(1) KLT 480)
• Laws Referred To: Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, Income Tax Rules, 1962
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K T SHYAMKUMAR; K K JOHN; GEORGE JOSEPH; K PRABHAKARAN; JOHN VARGHESE
• Assessee Lawyers: BECHU THOMAS
• Keywords: Court Fee; Debt Recovery Tribunal; Non-registration of appeals; Valuation of subject matter
• Section: 7(1); 30; 39

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 14051 of 2007(W) --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN DRC.1849/SIB/PTA IN OA.135/2000 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONERS: ------------------------ 1. V.SINILAL, PROPRIETOR, M/S.ROSS INDUSTRIES, SINI NILAYAM, PRAMADAM, P.O.MALLASSERY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. M.K.VIJAYARAJAN, SINI NILAYAM, PRAMADAM, P.O.MALLASSERY,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. OMANA V.RAJAN, SINI NILAYAM, PRAMADAM, P.O.MALLASSERY,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE, NEW DELHI. 2. DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (KERALA AND LAKSHADWEEP), REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36. 3. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., PATHANAMTHITTA BRANCH, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. RENJAN M., SHREEMANGALAM, PRAKKANAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 5. SUDHAMANI @ SUDHA RENJAN, SHREEMANGALAM, PRAKKANAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR FOR R4 &R5 SRI.K.K.JOHN FOR R3 SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH, ADDL.CGSC FOR R1,R2 SRI. K. PRABHAKARAN FOR R3 SRI. JOHN VARGHESE, ASG THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 35356 OF 2007 & WPC NO. 32264 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 14051/ 2007(W) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/1/2007 IN IA NO.113/2007 IN DRC NO.1849/SIB/PTA IN CASE NO. OA 135 OF 2000. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5/4/2007 IN APPEL NO. 6 OF 2007 IN UNNUMBERED APPEAL. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/4/2007 U/S. 39 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE scm C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).Nos.14051, 35356 & 32264 OF 2007 ------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Challenge in these writ petitions are mainly against non-registration of appeals filed under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDBFI Act), insisting payment of court fee based on the valuation of subject matter of the appeal, on the basis that such appeal petitions are to be treated as applications filed under sub Rule (1) of Rule (7) of Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993. 2. The question was elaborately considered in a judgment of this court reported in Dileep and others Vs. Debt Recovery Tribunal (2008(1) KLT 480). It is held by this court that levy of fee in terms of Rule 7(1) could be made only with respect to those appeals under Section 30(1) of the RDBFI Act which are appeals in which an “amount” is appealed against. In other cases it is held that, in the absence of any specific provisions, no court fee shall be leviable. 3. In view of the dictum laid by this court in the decision cited above, these writ petitions need be allowed directing the W.P.(C).14051,35356 & 32264 /2007 2 Debt Recovery Tribunal to register the appeals concerned, without insisting for payment of court fee under Rule 7 of the Procedure Rules. 4. It is pointed out by the standing counsel appearing for the Recovery Officer as well as the Debt Recovery Tribunal that the non-registration of appeals in some of these cases was not only due to non-payment of court fee but also due to some other defects. It is made clear that this judgment will not entitle the respective applicants to claim registration of the appeals unless other defects are cured. The writ petitions are disposed of with the above observations. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb "