Sudhir Agarwal, J.

1. Heard Sri M.P. Sarraf, learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record.

2. The dispute relates to fee payable on an application filed before Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 22 ( 2) ( g) of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ( hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1993") read with Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. The Tribunal in the impugned order dated 17.9.2009 has taken the view that under Rule 5 of Debts Recovery Tribunal ( Procedure) Rules, 1993 ( hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1993"), the application of the nature as above is an interlocutory application and a fee of Rs. 250/- would be payable thereon under Rule 7 ( 2) Clause ( 4) of Rules, 1993.

3. The facts giving rise to present dispute are as under.

4. Petitioner is employed as Development Officer in Bank of Baroda, Branch G.T. Road ( Main), Fatehpur. The Bank granted Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 10 lacs to M/s Ganga Tat Vikas Evam Nirman ( Pvt.) Limited through its Managing Director Hare Krishna Srivastava, on 2.1.1993. Petitioner with three others, namely, Mayur Man Singh, Gurudeo Singh and Chandra Bhushan stood guarantor. On account of default, a sum of Rs. 19,71,765/- was found recoverable from the loanee and hence respondent no. 1, Bank, instituted Suit No. 5 of 1996 in the Court of Civil Judge ( Senior Division) for recovery of Rs. 19,71,765/- along with interest at the rate of 24.5. per cent per annum, with quarterly rests together with cost and other usual benefits. Therein petitioner was also impleaded as defendant no. 7.

5. The suit was transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur whereupon it was re-registered as T.A. 444 of 2000 and was allowed vide judgment dated 3.1.2007 holding defendants no. 1 to 5 and 7 liable for payment of amount claimed in the suit. The Tribunal authorized the Bank to recover a sum of Rs. 19,71,765/- along with pendent lite interest etc. from defendants no. 1 to 5 and 7 and they were also restrained from transferring their property etc.

6. After a recovery certificate was issued, petitioner appeared before Tribunal and filed objection under Rule 11 of Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1961") stating that recovery certificate is nullity and without jurisdiction under U.P. Act No. 23 of 1972 since a fraud has been played by Bank. He said that under Act, 1993 there is no separate procedure for initiating recovery proceedings and instead Section 29, Second and Third Schedule of Act, 1961 and Income Tax ( Certificate Proceeding) Rules, 1962 ( hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1962") would apply to the recovery proceedings, initiated before Tribunal. For ready reference, Section 29 of Act, 1993 may be reproduced as under:

"29. Application of certain provisions of Income Tax Act - The provisions of the Second and Third Schedules to the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( 43 of 1961), and the Income Tax ( Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962, as in force from time to time shall, as far as possible, apply with necessary modifications as if the said provisions and the rules referred to the amount of debt due under this Act instead of to the Income Tax Act:

Provided that any reference under the said provision and the Rules to the "assessee" shall be construed as a reference to the defendant under this Act."

7. Petitioner also filed an application under Section 22 ( 2) ( g) of Act, 1993 for recall of order dated 3.1.2007 passed by Tribunal. This application was registered as M.A. 17 of 2008 but was dismissed for want of prosecution on 29.7.2009. Another application dated 7.9.2009 was filed by petitioner purported to be under Section 22 ( 2) ( g) of Act, 1993 read with Rule 19 of Rules, 1993 and Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. requesting Tribunal to recall order dated 29.7.2009. Stay application was also filed along with it. The Tribunal said that Stay Application should bear a fee of Rs. 250/- but no fee has been paid on recall application and, therefore, such applicat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document