9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Interpretation of provisions under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 regarding payment of court fee on counter-claims. - Jurisdiction of the High Court under article 227 of the Constitution to interfere with decisions of the Appellate Tribunal. Analysis: The case involved a writ petition where the defendants sought to raise a counter-claim in an application filed by a bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The defendants argued that they should not have to pay court fees on the counter-claim as per the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993. The defendants relied on sections 2(g), 19(8), and 19(9) of the Act, along with Rule 7 of the Rules to support their contention. The Act defines "debt" as any liability claimed due from a person by a bank or financial institution. Section 19(8) allows defendants to set up a counter-claim against the applicant, and section 19(9) gives the counter-claim the same effect as a cross-suit. Rule 7 mandates the payment of application fees for various types of applications. The High Court analyzed the provisions of the Act and Rules in detail. It noted that prior to the amendment in 2000, there was no provision for counter-claims against banks. The amended section 19(8) allowed defendants to file counter-claims, treating them as separate causes of action requiring separate court fees. The court explained that counter-claims were previously filed before civil courts but were now permissible before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The amendments aimed to address the anomaly where counter-claims had to be delinked from original suits. The court emphasized that the counter-claim application under section 19 required payment of court fees as per Rule 7. The court referred to a previous judgment to explain the limited scope of High Court interference under article 227 of the Constitution. It stated that High Courts cannot correct every wrong decision but should intervene only in cases of grave dereliction of duty or fundamental law principles' abuse. In this case, the Appellate Tribunal's decision to require court fees on the counter-claim was deemed legal and based on the Act and Rules' language. Consequently, the High Court rejected the writ petition without further reference to the respondents, upholding the Appellate Tribunal's decision.
|
