Back
K. BABU
Musthafa Kalippadathu, S/o. Kalippadathu Aboobacker – Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank Represented By Its Chief Manager – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The challenge in this Original Petition is to the order dated 26.4.2023 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Ernakulam in O.A.No.487/2019, declining the prayer for refund of eligible court fee.
2. The respondent Bank instituted the above Original Application against the petitioner to recover the amount due to the Bank. The petitioner filed a counter claim as provided in Section 19(8) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act'). The parties settled the dispute prior to the commencement of hearing and filed Ext.P3 joint application. In the joint application, the petitioner and respondent prayed for a refund of the eligible court fee under Section 19(3-B) of the Act. The Tribunal rejected the relief, prayed for by the petitioner on the ground that he was not an ‘applicant’ as defined in the Act and the Debts Recovery Tribunals (Refund of Court Fee) Rules, 2013 (for short ‘the DRT (Refund of Court Fee) Rules).
3. Section 19(3-B) of the Act contains the provision for refund of Court fees. Rule 4 of the DRT (Refund of Court Fee) Rules prescribes the percentage of the fee that the Tribunal can refund.
4. Section 19(3-B) of the Act reads thus:
A defendant filing a counter-claim in a debt recovery case is considered an 'applicant' for court fee refunds under S.19(3 - B) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act.
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, esp....
Point of law :Recall of compromise decree - Application for recalling of a compromise decree has to be filed only before the Court that had recorded the compromise in terms of Order XXIII Rule 3(a) o....
The court established that litigants have an inherent right to a refund of court fees when their application is disposed of as infructuous, despite the absence of an explicit statutory provision for ....
The court lacks power to refund court fees if withdrawn appeals do not meet statutory refund conditions under applicable acts.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that parties involved in a compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC are entitled to a refund of Court Fees under Section 89 of the CPC and Section 1....
Section 70 of the Act comes into play only when there is no adjudicatory process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
