High Court of Karnataka Allows Refund of Court Fees in DRT Proceedings When Main Petition Becomes Infructuous — Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 Applicable. The court held that the DRT erred in rejecting the refund application without considering Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, which provides for refund when a case becomes infructuous.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, Sri Narayana Murthy H M and Smt. Chandrakala R., filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. They sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal II, Bengaluru, which dismissed their I.A. No. 2280/2022 in S.A. No. 277/2022. The I.A. was filed seeking a refund of court fees of INR 79,225/- deposited in the Securitisation Application, which had been disposed of as infructuous. The petitioners had availed a loan of INR 2,50,00,000/- from Union Bank of India (respondent No. 2) in 2016, with petitioner No. 2 as guarantor. Subsequently, additional loans were sanctioned in 2019. The bank declared the account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and issued a demand notice under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petitioners filed S.A. No. 277/2022 before the DRT challenging the bank's actions. However, during the pendency of the S.A., the bank and the petitioners arrived at a settlement, and the S.A. was disposed of as infructuous. The petitioners then filed I.A. No. 2280/2022 seeking a refund of the court fees, which was dismissed by the DRT on the ground that there was no provision for refund under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act). The High Court considered the issue of whether Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, which provides for refund of court fees when a case becomes infructuous, applies to proceedings before the DRT. The court noted that the Court Fees Act is a general law and applies to all courts and tribunals unless specifically excluded. The DRT had not considered Section 16 of the Court Fees Act. The High Court held that the DRT's order was erroneous and set it aside, remanding the matter back to the DRT for fresh consideration of the refund application in light of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870. The court directed the DRT to pass a fresh order within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The writ petition was allowed in part.

Headnote

A) Court Fees - Refund of Court Fees - Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 - Applicability to DRT Proceedings - The petitioners sought refund of court fees of INR 79,225/- deposited in S.A. No. 277/2022 before the DRT, which was dismissed as infructuous. The DRT rejected the refund application. The High Court held that Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, which provides for refund of court fees on an application becoming infructuous, applies to proceedings before the DRT. The court directed the DRT to reconsider the refund application in light of Section 16 and the principle that court fees are meant for the services of the court, and if the proceeding becomes infructuous without adjudication, refund may be granted. (Paras 1-6)

B) Debt Recovery Tribunal - Refund of Court Fees - Section 16 Court Fees Act, 1870 - The DRT had dismissed the refund application on the ground that there was no provision for refund under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. The High Court clarified that the Court Fees Act, 1870 is a general law applicable to all courts and tribunals unless specifically excluded, and Section 16 provides for refund when a case becomes infructuous. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration. (Paras 4-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to a refund of court fees deposited in a Securitisation Application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal when the main petition was disposed of as infructuous.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the writ petition in part, set aside the DRT order dated 08.08.2022, and remanded the matter back to the DRT for fresh consideration of I.A. No. 2280/2022 in light of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870. The DRT was directed to pass a fresh order within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Law Points

  • Refund of court fees
  • Section 16 Court Fees Act
  • 1870
  • DRT proceedings
  • Infructuous petition
  • Certiorari
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

NC: 2024:KHC:46797

WP No. 11177 of 2023 (GM-DRT)

2024-11-19

Hemant Chandangoudar

NC: 2024:KHC:46797

Sri. Sameer Sharma (for petitioners); Smt. Nayana Tara B.G. (for R1); Smt. Divya Purandar (for R2); Sri. Naveen Chandrashekar, AGA (for R3)

Sri Narayana Murthy H M and Smt. Chandrakala R.

The Registrar, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore; Union Bank of India; State of Karnataka

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal rejecting an application for refund of court fees.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of DRT order dated 08.08.2022 dismissing I.A. No. 2280/2022 and direction for refund of INR 79,225/- or remand for reconsideration.

Filing Reason

The DRT dismissed the petitioners' application for refund of court fees deposited in S.A. No. 277/2022, which was disposed of as infructuous, on the ground that there is no provision for refund under the RDB Act.

Previous Decisions

The DRT dismissed I.A. No. 2280/2022 on 08.08.2022, holding that there is no provision for refund of court fees under the RDB Act.

Issues

Whether the petitioners are entitled to a refund of court fees deposited in a Securitisation Application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal when the main petition was disposed of as infructuous. Whether Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 applies to proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioners argued that the DRT erred in dismissing the refund application without considering Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, which provides for refund when a case becomes infructuous. The respondents contended that there is no provision for refund under the RDB Act and that the Court Fees Act does not apply to DRT proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, which provides for refund of court fees when a case becomes infructuous, applies to proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The DRT must consider this provision when deciding refund applications, as the Court Fees Act is a general law applicable to all courts and tribunals unless specifically excluded.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioners before this Court are seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash and set aside the order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal II, Bengaluru, dismissing the I.A. No. 2280/2022, in S.A. No. 277/2022 filed by the petitioners herein, seeking a refund of the court fees as deposited, on account of disposal of the main petition as infructuous. The DRT had not considered Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, which provides for refund of court fees when a case becomes infructuous.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed S.A. No. 277/2022 before the DRT challenging the bank's actions under the SARFAESI Act. During pendency, the matter was settled and the S.A. was disposed of as infructuous. The petitioners then filed I.A. No. 2280/2022 seeking refund of court fees, which was dismissed by the DRT on 08.08.2022. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka.

Acts & Sections

  • Court Fees Act, 1870: Section 16
  • Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993:
  • Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds NCDRC Order on Medical Negligence Compensation but Leaves Jurisdictional Issue Open. The Court affirmed the award against Safdarjung Hospital due to the small compensation amount and lack of factual challenge, while clarifying t...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Refund of Court Fees in DRT Proceedings When Main Petition Becomes Infructuous — Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 Applicable. The court held that the DRT erred in rejecting the refund application without conside...