Misc. Appeal Nos. 310 of 2005 and 878 of 2006. Case: Dena Bank Vs Parshav H. Shah & Others. Mumbai DRAT DRAT (Mumbai Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)

Case NumberMisc. Appeal Nos. 310 of 2005 and 878 of 2006
Party NameDena Bank Vs Parshav H. Shah & Others
CounselFor Appellant: Ms. Mumtaz Khan i/b B.M. Gupta & Associates, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Lalitkumar Jain i/b Lalitkumar Jain & Co., Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
JudgesAllah Raham, J. (Chairperson)
IssueBanking
Judgement DateOctober 13, 2010
CourtMumbai DRAT DRAT (Mumbai Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)

Judgment:

Allah Raham, J. (Chairperson)

  1. This Appeal impugns the order dated 10th June, 2005 passed by the then Learned Presiding officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal No. III, Mumbai, whereby Appellant's Appeal No. 66/ 2004 against the order of the Registrar, DRT-III, Mumbai, requiring the Appellant to pay requisite Court Fee was dismissed.

  2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant bank has paid Rs. 250/- as Court Fee which is sufficient for registration of the matter at the end of the learned Registrar.

    2.1. It is be noted that Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Delhi vide its order in Writ Petition No. (C) 7205/2007, dated 25th August, 2009 has declared Sr. No. 5 of Rule 7 (2) of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 2002 as ultra-vires. The relevant para Nos. 12 and 13 of the judgment are quoted hereunder for ready reference:

  3. That being the position in law, Rule 7 of the DRT Rules, to the extent that it prescribes a fee for appeals from orders of the Recovery officers, is beyond the rule making power of the Central Government. No such rules could have been made by the Central Government prescribing any fees or rate of fees, for such appeals, inasmuch as the Central Government was not empowered by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial