IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1867 OF 2024 (GM-DRT)

BETWEEN:

1. THE REGISTRAR DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BSNL BUILDING TELEPHONE HOUSE RAJBHAVAN ROAD BANGALORE - 560 009 …APPELLANT (BY SMT. NAYANA TARA B.G., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by VEERENDRA 1. SRI NARAYANA MURTHY H.M.

KUMAR K M Location: S/O. MADAPPA H.T.

High Court of Karnataka AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.117 SAPTHAGIRI, N BLOCK KUVEMPU NAGARA MYSORE - 570 023

2. SMT. CHANDRAKALA R.

W/O. NARAYANA MURTHY H. M.

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.117 SAPTHAGIRI, N BLOCK KUVEMPU NAGARA MYSORE - 570 023

3. UNION BANK OF INDIA MYSORE-KAMAKSHI HOSPITAL BRANCH KAMAKSHI HOSPITAL SARAWATHIPURAM MYSORE - 570 009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SAMEER SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 & 2, SMT. DIVYA PURANDAR, ADVCOATE FOR R-3)

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.

No.11177/2023 & ETC.

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PREFATORY FACTS.............................................................................4 II. SUBMISSIONS......................................................................................7 III. REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS......................................................10 (A) MAINTAINABILITY:............................................................................10 (B) THE ENTITLEMENT TO REFUND OF FEE:.......................................13 (C) TRIBUNAL HAS NO INHERENT POWER TO REFUND THE FEE:.....19 (D) DRT REFUND RULES ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO FEES UNDER THE SARFAESI ACT:.................................................................................42 (E) NO ELEMENT OF DIRECT QUID PRO QUO:.....................................44 (F) THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT:........................................................45

1. The Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru [the DRT has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 19.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.11177/2023 (GM-DRT) [impugned order] allowing the said petition.

2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 [the writ petitioners] had preferred the said petition impugning an order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the learned DRT rejecting their application – I.A.No.2280/2022 in S.A.No.277/2022 – for refund of court fee of `79,225/- (Rupees Seventy Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Five only). In the alternative, the writ petitioners had prayed to quash the said order and place the matter before the learned DRT for reconsideration of their request for refund of the court fee.

I. PREFATORY FACTS

3. Respondent No.1 [writ petitioner No.1] had availed a loan of `2,50,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore and Fifty Lacs only), which was secured by mortgage of several properties. Respondent No.2 [writ petitioner No.2], who is the spouse of writ petitioner No.1, had stood as a surety for the repayment obligations. The writ petitioners state that thereafter the repayments were scheduled and respondent No.3 [The Bank] sanctioned further loans of `30,00,000/- and `6,50,000/-. 4. The writ petitioners claim that they were not in default of servicing the loans for more than a period of ninety days and yet the Bank had classified the loan account as a Non-Performing Asset [NPA]. The Bank had issued a notice dated 17.02.2022 under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [SARFAESI], to take possession of the secured assets. The Bank thereafter issued an e-auction notice