The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement for refund of Court Fees on the return of the proceeding, emphasizing the absence of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to adjudicate the claim and the need for a liberal interpretation of fiscal statutes to lessen the burden on litigation.

JUDGMENT

Vinay Joshi, J. - Rejection of petitioners claim for refund of Court Fees, has occasioned them to invoke inherent extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner No. 1 is a Cooperative Society registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and is doing banking business. The Petitioner - Bank has resorted the mode of recovery of loan amount from its debtors through respondent No. 2 Debts Recovery Tribunal under the provisions of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short ''the Act of 1993''). Naturally, in the said recovery proceeding, the petitioner Bank deposited requisite Court Fees Stamp as per Rule 7 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993. The Supreme Court ruled that the Cooperative Bank constituted under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 does not fall within the meaning of ''Banking Company'' as defined in Section 5(c) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949. In turn, the provisions of the Act of 1993 does not apply.

3. In view of the settled legal position, the petitioners Original Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur was returned for presentation before the competent Forum vide order dated 13.03.2008.

4. After return of proceeding, the petitioner - Bank applied to the respondent No. 2 for refund of Court Fees of Rs. 1,27,000/- vide MA No. 39/2008. After hearing the petitioner - Bank, the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur has declined to refund the Court Fee vide impugned order dated 10.06.2008 which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. The only short question involves for consideration is about petitioners entitlement for refund of Court Fees on return of proceeding.

5. Heard both learned counsel on the disputed question. So far as legal position is concerned, there is no dispute that recovery proceeding by Cooperative Bank, is not maintainable before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It is also not in dispute that petitioners original application for recovery of outstanding dues came to be returned for presentation before the competent Forum. In the light of said position, the question needs to be answered about petitioners entitlement for refund of Court Fee.

6. The impugned order was passed on 10.06.2008 when the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 were in existence. Admittedly, these Rules nowhere contains the provision about refund of Court Fees. During course of time, Debts Recovery Tribunals (Refund of Court Fees) Rules, 2013 came in existence containing specific Clause No. 4 about the refund of Court Fees. It provides that there shall be refund of 50 percent of the Court Fees, if the matter is settled prior to the commencement of the hearing before the Tribunal. Likewise, there shall be refund of 25 percent of the Court Fees where the matter is settled at any stage of the proceeding before the final order is passed. However, there is no specific legible provision about the refund of Court Fees on the return of proceeding. In absence of such provision, one has to turn to the general provisions of liability.

7. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners would submit that since the plaint was returned on account of the jurisdiction, the petitioners are entitled for refund of full Court Fees. In this regard, he relied upon reported case of Rhoda Jal Mehta and others Vs. Homi Framroze Mehta and others, 1989 Mh.L.J. 124 . In the said case, the plaintiffs had filed a suit without obtaining requisite leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent (Bombay). In the said decision, this Court has referred Full Bench decision in the case of Prabhakarbhat Vs. Vishwambhar Pandit, ILR Vol.8, 1883 at Pp. 313 wherein it is observed as herein below:-

''Where a Court fee on the institution of a suit has been paid in a Court which cannot possibly afford the relief sought, it does n