The main legal point established in the judgment is that the requirement of a joint application for refund of court fees cannot defeat the legal rights of the applicant to receive the court fees, especially when the entitlement for refund of court fees itself has been fixed by a judicial order.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties heard finally.

2. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioner bank, praying for a writ of mandamus for quashing the words “and Defendant shall file joint Application” from Rule 5 of the Debts and Recovery Tribunal (Refund of Court fees) Rules, 2013, (Refund Rules) and also seeking a direction to Respondent No. 3 (Registrar, DRT-II) Mumbai, to immediately release the amount quantified in impugned order without insisting for joint Application.

3. The Petitioner is inter alia engaged in the business of banking and is governed by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the rules and regulations framed thereunder. The Petitioner had advanced a loan to one of its borrowers, who had defaulted in its repayment. The Petitioner hence had filed recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai, numbered as O.A. No. 410 of 2018. However, after filing of the said proceedings a settlement was arrived between the parties. The Petitioner thereafter filed Interlocutory Application No. 272 of 2019 in the said Original Application No. 410 of 2018, seeking permission to withdraw the Original Application as the Petitioner had received the settlement amount.

4. On 7th March 2019 the said Interlocutory Application NO. 272 of 2019, was heard by DRT-II, Mumbai, when the Advocate for the Petitioner was present, however, none appeared for the Defendant (Borrower). On the submission made by the Advocate for the Petitioner the Original Application was permitted to be withdrawn and was disposed of, as the dispute stood settled out of Court. The Petitioner was directed to follow the procedure for refund of court fees as per the refund of court fees rules.

5. The Petitioner thereafter filed an Application for refund of Court Fees. The DRT-II, Mumbai on 18th June 2022 passed an order on the said application observing that the Applicant and the Defendant should file a joint Application for refund of court fees as per rules. It was observed that as the Petitioner/Applicant had not submitted a joint Application, hence, the application would not be processed further.

6. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the DRT-II, Mumbai, in not awarding refund/return of Court Fees in the absence of a joint application, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition praying for the following reliefs:

“(A) Rule be issued.

(B) That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction quashing word “and the Defendants(s) shall file joint” in Rule 5 of Debts Recovery Tribunal (Refund of Court of fees) Rules, 2013 as the same being unjust.

(C) That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction quashing of insistence by the Respondent No. 3 of “joint application” in the Impugned Order be quashed and set-aside to that extent and the Respondent No. 3 be directed to process and refund the court fees as stated and quantified in the said Impugned Order.”

7. Mr. Vishal Tambat learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner while filing the recovery proceedings paid the maximum Court Fees of Rs.1,50,000/- and the said amount is paid from the Bank’s funds. He further submited that on several occasions when the Petitioner initiated recovery proceedings, the borrowers come forward and pay the outstanding amounts and/or the disputes stand settled outside the Court and after settlement the borrowers do not again approach the Petitioner. It is also submitted that therefore, in such situations it becomes difficult for the bank to obtain consent/signatures of the Borrower/Defendant on the refund of Court fees application. It is submitted that in these circumstanc