Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and sought financial assistance in the form of working capital loan from the respondent Bank. It transpires that a loan of Rs. 90,00,000/- was sanctioned in the year 1992. The petitioners failed to repay the loan, and accordingly, the respondents Bank filed original suit in the year 1992, before the Civil Court, Allahabad for recovery of Rs. 97,61,000/-, which was subsequently transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal)

2. It is alleged that during the pendency of the original application before the Tribunal, the parties arrived at a compromise, settling the entire amount at Rs. 1,05,00,000/-. It is alleged that without adhering to the terms of the settlement, the respondent Bank took recourse to recover the amount by issuing a notice under Section 13(2) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NPA Act’). Upon failure to pay the amount as per the demand notice, a notice under Section 13(4) of the said Act was issued for taking possession. Pursuant to this notice issued under sub clause (4) of Section 13, the petitioner filed an application under Section 17(1) of the said Act before the Tribunal for setting aside the said possession notice. During the pendency of this application, the petitioner filed an amendment application, which was rejected by an order dated 11th August, 2010 and the Tribunal, thereafter, fixed 06th September, 2010 for further orders.

3. It transpires that two impleadment applications were filed by the guarantors on 16th August, 2010 to implead themselves as parties in the case as well as to implead the auction purchaser. On this application, the Tribunal fixed 17th August 2010. The matter was heard by the Tribunal on 17th August, 2010 and thereafter the Tribunal fixed 23rd August, 2010 for delivery of order on the impleadment application. On 23rd August, 2010, the Tribunal, instead of passing an order on the impleadment application, dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 17 (1) for non appearance under Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When the petitioner came to know of the said order, a restoration application dated 4.10.2010 was filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which was rejected by an order dated 23rd February, 2011. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, filed an appeal under Section 18 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal)

4. It transpires that the petitioner paid a Court fee of Rs. 200/- on this miscellaneous appeal and the Registrar put a note that there was a deficiency of Court fee, inasmuch as, the appellant was required to pay a Court fee of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The petitioner objected to it and the matter was placed before the Appellate Tribunal. By an order dated 10th August, 2011, the Appellate Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards Court fee as per Rule 13(2)(b) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2002). The Tribunal, while directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,00,000/-, relied upon its earlier judgment in Vikram Singh v. Union Bank of India, in appeal No. 146 of 2009 decided on 05th April, 2011. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition.

5. The Court has heard at length Sri Pradip Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.M. Asthana, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and 3 i.e., the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal, and Sri Sanjeev Singh, the learned counsel for respondent No. 4, Union Bank of India and Sri Sandeep Shukla, the learned counsel holding brief of Sri Chandan Sharma, the learned counsel for respondent No. 5.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner co