C.R.P.(NPD) No.794 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.03.2021

CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

C.R.P. (NPD) No.794 of 2021

Punjab National Bank

Asset Recovery Management Branch

rep. by its Chief Manager

No.48-49, Royapettah High Road

Chennai 14.

..

Petitioner

Vs.

1. Shivakeshav Pillai

2. Sheerin Doulath

3. M/s. 99 Chills

rep. by its Proprietor

Shivakeshav Pillai

No.32, Alapakkam Main Road

Maduravoyal

Chennai 600 095.

4. M/s. ATM 360

rep. by its Partners

Shivakeshav Pillai and Sheerin Doulath

New No.10, Murugan Nagar

2nd Main Road, Kolathur

Chennai 600 099.

__________

Page 1 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P.(NPD) No.794 of 2021

5. K.S.Doulath Thameen

..

Respondents

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India against the order dated 16.12.2020 passed in OA Diary

No.114 of 2020 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai.

For Petitioner

: Mr.M.L.Ganesh

ORDER

(Made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

Though the matter has been put up by the Registry to consider

the maintainability, it is desirable that the Registry merely puts up a

note at the time of admission and not expresses any view as to the

maintainability of any matter, since that is an exercise of judicial

authority. However, that does not imply that any doubts need not be

expressed; only that a note may be appended for the Bench to take

notice of, if it appeals to the relevant Bench.

2. In the present case, since Article 227 of the Constitution of

India has been invoked, which gives plenary authority to this Court to

exercise superintendence over the discharge of judicial functions within

__________

Page 2 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P.(NPD) No.794 of 2021

the territory of the State, any order passed by any Court or Tribunal

within the territory is amenable to challenge in this jurisdiction and the

question of maintainability does not arise. It is, however, an entirely

different matter that the Court may not entertain certain kinds of

petitions because they are at the initial stage of the proceedings or the

like. However, any order or action of any Court or Tribunal within the

territory of the State is amenable to challenge under Article 227 of the

Constitution and the question of maintainability does not arise.

3. In the instant case, the order impugned is dated December

16, 2020 and it requires the petitioning bank to pay a sum in excess of

Rs.1.50 lakh by way of court-fees in receiving the petitioner's

application under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts and

Bankruptcy Act, 1993.

4. Rule 7 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules,

1993 sets out a chart under Sub-rule (2) thereof. The three columns in

such chart display the serial numbers of the items, the nature of the

application in each case and the quantum of fees payable.

__________

Page 3 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P.(NPD) No.794 of 2021

5. Rule 7(2) of the said Rules covers six situations: an

application made under Section 19(1) or 19(2) of the Act of 1993; an

application to counter-claim under Section 19(8) of the Act; an

application for review; an application for interlocutory order; an appeal

against an order of the Recovery Officer; and, for filing vakalatnama.

Within the relevant classes of action described under the second

column, different situations are indicated based on the value of the

claim or the nature of the order and the varying amounts of court-fees

payable are indicated in the third column.

6. There is no doubt that in the present case, the petitioning

bank had carried an application for recovery of debts due under

Section 19(1) of the Act of 1993. In respect of such applications, there

are two situations which may arise in