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 challenging an order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal II, Bengaluru, dismissing their I.A. No. 2280/2022 in S.A. No. 277/2022. The petitioners had sought a refund of court fees amounting to INR 79,225/- deposited in the main petition, which had been disposed of as infructuous. The petitioners were borrowers who had availed loans from Union Bank of India, and after the bank issued a demand notice classifying their account as NPA, they filed a securitisation application under the SARFAESI Act. However, the main petition became infructuous due to subsequent events. The petitioners then filed an application for refund of court fees, which was dismissed by the DRT. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, which allows refund of court fees if the court is satisfied that the refund is justified. The Court noted that the DRT, as a tribunal, has inherent powers to do justice and can order refund of court fees. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the DRT for fresh consideration, directing the DRT to consider the application for refund in accordance with law and the principles laid down in the judgment. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Court Fees - Refund - Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 - DRT Proceedings - The petitioners sought refund of court fees deposited in S.A. No. 277/2022 after the main petition was disposed of as infructuous. The DRT dismissed the application. The High Court held that Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 empowers the court to order refund of court fees if the court is satisfied that the refund is justified. The DRT, being a tribunal, has inherent power to do justice and can order refund. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal has the power to order refund of court fees when the main petition is disposed of as infructuous, and whether the impugned order dismissing the application for refund is sustainable.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal II, Bengaluru, in I.A. No. 2280/2022 in S.A. No. 277/2022 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the DRT for fresh consideration of the application for refund of court fees in accordance with law and the principles laid down in the judgment.
Law Points
- Refund of court fees
- DRT proceedings
- infructuous petition
- Court Fees Act
- 1870 Section 13
- inherent power of tribunal
Case Details
WP No. 11177 of 2023 (GM-DRT)
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 dismissing an application for refund of court fees.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the DRT order dated 08.08.2022 and refund of INR 79,225/- court fees, or remand for reconsideration.
Filing Reason
The DRT dismissed the petitioners' application for refund of court fees deposited in S.A. No. 277/2022 after the main petition was disposed of as infructuous.
Previous Decisions
The DRT II, Bengaluru, by order dated 08.08.2022, dismissed I.A. No. 2280/2022 in S.A. No. 277/2022, refusing refund of court fees.
Issues
Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal has the power to order refund of court fees under Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 when the main petition is disposed of as infructuous.
Whether the impugned order dismissing the application for refund is sustainable.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the main petition became infructuous and they are entitled to refund of court fees under Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
Respondents opposed the refund, contending that the DRT has no power to order refund of court fees.
Ratio Decidendi
The Debt Recovery Tribunal, being a tribunal, has inherent power to do justice and can order refund of court fees under Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 if the court is satisfied that the refund is justified. The dismissal of the application for refund without considering the merits was unsustainable.
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.
Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 empowers the court to order refund of court fees if the court is satisfied that the refund is justified.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed S.A. No. 277/2022 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal II, Bengaluru, which was disposed of as infructuous. Thereafter, they 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 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Court Fees Act, 1870: 13
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
