HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, S.MANU, JJ
AMEENA SALIM – Appellant
Versus
PRESIDING OFFICER – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedure for formal defects (Para 4) |
J U D G M E N T
A.Muhamed Mustaque, Acg.C.J.
This appeal addresses an important issue regarding the procedure to be followed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) while considering the challenge raised under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002. The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (in short 'SIE Rules) prescribed different table of fees for challenge to be raised under of the SARFAESI Act. It is appropriate to refer Rule 13 of SIE Rules, which reads as follows;
“13. Fees for applications and appeals under Sections 17 and 18 of the Act (1) Every application under sub-section (1) of section 17 or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (1) of section 18 shall be accompanied by a fee provided in the sub-rule (2) and such fee may be remitted through a crossed demand draft drawn on a bank or Indian Postal Order in favour of the Registrar of the Tribunal or the Court as the case may be, payable at the place where the Tribunal or the Court is situated. (2) The amount of fee payable shall be as follows:
| No. | Nature of Appl | |
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.