The court emphasized that compliance with stamp duty regulations should not be a means to delay justice once revenue interests have been served.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. The Petitioner in this petition is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (for short the 'DRAT' ) dated 16th December, 2015 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 24 of 2012 along with Misc. Appeal Nos. 578/2015 and 930/2013.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, petition is taken up for final hearing.

3. The Petitioner is a public financial institution, as defined under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 . The Oriental Bank of Commerce had advanced various amounts to Respondent No. 1, who had guaranteed the repayment of the said amount and had mortgaged their properties with the Bank. Since the Respondents were unable to repay the said amount, which was due and payable to the Bank, the Bank filed Original Application No. 89 of 2005 against the Respondents before the Debts Recovery Tribunal - II, Mumbai (for short the 'DRT' ). The debts, which were due and payable to the Oriental Bank of Commerce, were assigned to the Petitioner Company, and therefore, the petitioners were substituted as applicant in the original application. The Petitioner filed the claim affidavit along with the original document. The Respondents / Defendants also filed their claim, reiterating what they had stated in the written statement.

4. The Petitioner / Applicant filed an Interim Application No. 384 of 2011, requesting the Presiding Officer to impound the said documents since they were not properly stamped. The Respondents opposed the said application. The DRT, however, allowed the application filed by the Petitioner, and passed an order that the documents tendered by the Petitioner should be returned to the Petitioner, and that the Petitioner should get these documents properly stamped from the competent authority.

5. The Respondents challenged the order of DRT by filing Miscellaneous Appeal No. 24 of 2012 before the DRAT. During pendency of the appeal all the documents, which were returned to the Petitioner were duly stamped as per the order passed by the competent authority, were filed before the DRT.

6. The learned Chairperson of the DRAT allowed the appeal filed by the Respondents and directed the DRT to consider the documents as if they were unstamped and gave a direction to follow the procedure, established under the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 and more particularly, under S.33, S.34 and S.37 of the said Act.

7. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the said order has filed this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Saraf, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has taken us to the impugned order passed by the DRAT. He submitted that since the documents were duly stamped during the pendency of the appeal and refiled before the DRT, the appeal had become infructuous and the DRAT should not have given a direction to the DRT to decide the matter afresh. He further submitted that the relevant provisions, viz. S.33, S.34 and S.37 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (for short the 'said Act' ) were incorporated only with an intention to protect the interest of the revenue. He submitted that since the stamp duties have been paid, the said intention has been fulfilled, and therefore, there are no occasions for the DRAT to give a direction to follow the procedure under S.33 and S.37, sub-section (2) of the said Act. He also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of - Hindustan Steel Ltd., Appellant v. M/s. Dilip