AIR 2007 KARNATAKA 100 ::2007 (4) All LJ NOC 710 ::2007 (3) ABR (NOC) 512 (KAR) ::2007 (2) AIR Kar R 11 ::2007 CLC 1000 ::(2007) 2 BankJ 630 ::(2007) 2 Kant LJ 222 ::(2007) 3 BankCas 203 ::(2007) 137 ComCas 306

Karnataka High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): H. V. G. Ramesh , J

Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act (51 of 1993) , S.19, S.30— Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules (1993) , R.7— Appeal against order of Recovery Officer u/S. 19 - Rule prescribes payment of court-fee as condition precedent to entertain appeal - Not arbitrary or ultra vires the Act. The amended S. 30 makes it clear that the order of the Recovery Officer should be challenged only by way of an appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal/application for the purpose of S. 19 is one and the same and it cannot be interpreted as an interlocutory application much-less the order under challenge i.e. the auction conducted by the Recovery Officer, cannot be necessarily treated as an interlocutory order. Section 30 of the Act is very much clear that when the petitioners prefer an appeal to the Tribunal as required u/S. 19, then he has to pay the necessary fees. What is exempted u/S. 19 of the Act is regarding transfer of certain cases from the Civil Court to the Debt Recovery Tribunal on the basis of pecuniary jurisdiction. When S. 30 of the Act itself makes it specific that such an application/appeal to be filed before the Tribuanl as against the order of the Recovery Officer is in the form of an appeal for the purpose of S. 19, then, the petitioner may have to pay the prescribed fee as is provided u/S. 19(3) and for the purpose of S. 19, app....