9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether court fee is payable on counter claims filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal prior to the amendment of Rule 7 on 21.1.2003. Detailed Analysis: 1. Common Questions of Fact and Law: Both writ petitions raised common questions of fact and law regarding the payment of court fees on counter claims filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) prior to the amendment of Rule 7 on 21.1.2003. The petitions were therefore disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Background of the Cases: The petitioners, who were respondents in Original Applications (O.A.) filed by banks before the DRT, had filed counter claims in their written statements. The DRT directed the petitioners to pay court fees on these counter claims, which the petitioners contested on the grounds that there was no statutory provision for such fees at the time the counter claims were filed. 3. Issue of Court Fee on Counter Claims: The core issue was whether any court fee was payable on the counter claims raised in the written statements filed by the defendants in the O.A.s pending before the Tribunal. 4. Relevant Dates and Amendments: The counter claims were filed before the amendment of Rule 7, which incorporated a provision for payment of court fees on counter claims, effective from 21.1.2003. The petitioners argued that since the counter claims were filed before this date, no court fee was payable. 5. Petitioners' Argument: The petitioners contended that the provision permitting counter claims was introduced by Act 1/2000, effective from 17.1.2000, but Rule 7 was amended to include court fees on counter claims only from 21.1.2003. They argued that in the absence of any provision for court fees on counter claims during the interregnum period, no court fee was payable on their counter claims filed prior to 21.1.2003. 6. Respondents' Argument: The respondents argued that since the Bank is obliged to pay court fees on the O.A. filed before the Tribunal, a counter claim should be treated as a counter suit and should be subject to the same court fee provisions as an O.A. filed under Section 19(1) of the Act. 7. Relevant Provisions of the Act and Rules: Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, was examined, particularly subsections (1), (2), (8), and (9). The court noted that while Section 19(1) and (2) provided for the payment of court fees on applications filed by banks, there was no express provision for court fees on counter claims until the amendment of Rule 7 in 2003. 8. Interpretation of Section 19(9): Section 19(9) treats a counter claim as a cross suit for the limited purpose of enabling the Tribunal to pass a final order on both the original claim and the counter claim. It does not imply that the fee provisions applicable to O.A.s filed by banks also apply to counter claims. 9. Amendment of Rule 7: The amendment to Rule 7, effective from 21.1.2003, explicitly included counter claims in the provision for court fees. The court held that this amendment was not retrospective and applied only from the date it came into force. 10. Legislative Intent: The court emphasized that the legislative intent was to give effect to the rule prospectively from 21.1.2003, and not retrospectively. The court rejected the respondents' argument that court fees were payable on counter claims even before the amendment. 11. Precedents and Legal Principles: The court referred to various precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, which held that courts cannot rewrite or add to the legislation. The court also cited decisions emphasizing that court fees are payable according to the law in force at the time of filing the suit or application. Conclusion: The court concluded that no court fee was payable on counter claims filed before the amendment of Rule 7 on 21.1.2003. The orders passed by the Tribunal directing the petitioners to pay court fees on their counter claims were set aside, and the writ petitions were allowed.
|
