JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral) - The instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside of the order dated 17.05.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), SAS Nagar, Mohali in Civil Suit titled as 'Bank of Baroda Vs. Anirudh Jain and another' vide which the valuation of the Court fee as assessed by the petitioner/plaintiff was rejected and instead it was directed to pay advalorem Court fee as per the amount claimed in the suit.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is against the statutory provisions and thus is patently illegal. He has further contended that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner was a banking company as defined under Section 5(c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (for short, 'the Act') and still further ignored that the loan advanced by the petitioner to the respondents was a "secured loan or advance" within the meaning of Section 5(n) of the Act. Therefore, since the loan was a claim under the provisions of the Act, the petitioner had affixed the right Court fee as per Article 19 of the Second Schedule to the Court Fees Act, 1870 (as applicable to the State of Punjab). Learned counsel still further submits that the Trial Court has erroneously relied upon Section 45B of the Act which pertains to the jurisdiction of the High Court in liquidation proceedings and not to recovery of debts by a banking company, hence, the Trial Court could not have directed the petitioner to make good the deficiency of Court fee by affixing the payable advalorem Court fee as per the amount claimed in the suit.

I have heard learned counsel and perused the relevant material placed on record.

3. The moot question which arises for consideration of this Court is as to what is the meaning or scope of the expression "claims for money" as appearing in Article 19 of Second Schedule to Court Fees Act, 1870 (as applicable to the State of Punjab).

Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to understand the object and purpose behind the Act.

4. The need for this Act was felt in the light of gross abuse of powers by persons controlling the banks. Since there were no measures in place to safeguard the interests of the depositors of banking companies, it resulted in erosion of faith of the general public in the banking institution. It was, thus, in this background, the Act was enacted to protect the interests of the depositors as well as to discipline and regulate the working/functioning of the banking companies.

5. On a meticulous perusal of the entire Act, the only provisions where 'claims' are talked about are contained under Part III (Suspension of business and winding up of Banking Companies), Part IIIA (Special provisions for speedy disposal of winding up proceedings) and Part IIIB (Provisions relating to certain operations of Banking Companies) of the Act.

6. It would also be apposite to reproduce certain relevant provisions of the Act to clarify the position, which read thus:-

"40. Stay of proceedings.-Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Sec. 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), the High Court shall not make any order staying the proceedings in relation to the winding up of a banking company, unless the High Court is satisfied that an arrangement has been made whereby the company can pay its depositors in full as their claims accrue.

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

4I-A. Notice to preferential claimants and secured and unsecured creditors.- (1) Within fifteen days from the date of the winding-up order of a banking company or where the winding-up order has been made before the commencement of the Banking Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 1960 (37 of 1960), within one month from such commencement liquidator shall, for the purpose of making an estimate of the debts and liabilities of the banking company (other than its liabilities and obligations. to its depositors), by notice serve