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