SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 53719

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
JUDGE NAME, J
Musthafa Kalippadathu v. Canara Bank


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: [Counsel Name]
For the Respondents: [Bank Counsel Name]

Table of Content
1. challenge to tribunal's order in refund case. (Para 1 , 2)
2. definition of 'applicant' in debt recovery context. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)

1. The challenge in this Original Petition is to the order dated 26.4.2023 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal - 1, Ernakulam in O.A.No.487/2019, declining the prayer for refund of eligible court fee.

2. The respondent Bank instituted the above Original Application against the petitioner to recover the amount due to the Bank. The petitioner filed a counter claim as provided in S.19(8) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act'). The parties settled the dispute prior to the commencement of hearing and filed Ext.P3 joint application. In the joint application, the petitioner and respondent prayed for a refund of the eligible court fee under S.19(3 - B) of the Act. The Tribunal rejected the relief, prayed for by the petitioner on the ground that he was not an 'applicant' as defined in the Act and the Debts Recovery Tribunals (Refund of Court Fee) Rules, 2013 (for short 'the DRT (Refund of Court Fee) Rules).

3. S.19(3 - B) of the Act contains the provision for refund of Court fees. R.4 of the DRT (Refund of


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top