The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking a direction to Respondent No.3 to immediately release the amount quantified in the impugned order without insisting on a joint Application. The Court observed that merely because the Defendant is not coming forward or is not available or he does not intend or is not agreeable to give his consent for a joint application to be presented for the refund of Court fees, cannot defeat the legal rights of the applicant like the Petitioner to receive the Court fees.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner is inter alia engaged in the business of banking. The Petitioner had advanced a loan to one of its borrowers, who had defaulted in its repayment. The Petitioner, hence, had filed recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. However, after the filing of the said proceedings, a settlement was arrived between the parties. The Petitioner thereafter filed Interlocutory Application, seeking permission to withdraw the Original Application, which was allowed.
The Petitioner thereafter filed an application for the refund of Court Fees. The DRT-II, on 18th June 2022, passed an order on the said application, observing that the Applicant and the Defendant should file a joint Application for the refund of court fees as per the rules. It was observed that as the Petitioner/Applicant had not submitted a joint Application, hence, the application would not be processed further. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the DRT-II, Mumbai, in not awarding refund/return of Court Fees in the absence of a joint application, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that on several occasions when the Petitioner initiated recovery proceedings, the borrowers come forward and pay the outstanding amounts, and/or the disputes stand settled outside the Court and after settlement, the borrowers do not again approach the Petitioner. In such situations, it becomes difficult for the bank to obtain consent/signatures of the Borrower/Defendant on the refund of the Court fees application. Hence, it was submitted that in these circumstances, it becomes impossible for the Petitioners to file a joint Application for the refund of Court fees in presenting the refund applications.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent argued that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable and be dismissed as the Petitioner is not able to show any injustice being done to it. In the event of settlement between the Borrower and the Bank, all the dues may be the subject matter of settlement between the parties. Therefore, in order to avoid the bank/financial institutions from seeking dual benefit, both from the borrower and the Tribunal, Rule 5(1) of the said Rules provides for filing a joint application by the applicant and the Defendant.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that Rule 5(1) providing for refund of Court fees cannot be read so as to defeat and/or frustrate any entitlement of the applicant for the refund of Court fees as may be permissible under the provisions of Rule 4 as noted above. Merely because the Defendant is not coming forward or is not available or he does not intend or is not agreeable to give his consent for a joint application to be presented for the refund of Court fees, cannot defeat the legal rights of the applicant like the Petitioner to receive the Court fees.
Further, the Court observed that in case the Registrar has any doubt on materials that the applicant in the Original Application does not himself/itself become entitled to the refund of Court fees and/or if the judicial order does not grant a clear refund of Court fees to the plaintiff alone, in such cases, certainly the requirement of joint application can be insisted. However, to blanketly read Rule 5(1) to mean that in every case a joint application is necessary for the grant of refund of court fees, would not only defeat the entitlement to the refund of Court fees but is also likely to be contrary to the judicial order passed by the DRT/DRAT granting refund of Court fees.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, allowing the petition, held that the petitioner is entitled to the refund of Court fees.
Case Title: Yes Bank Limited vs UOI & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Hon’ble Justice Rajesh S. Patil
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 5229 OF 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Vishal Tambat
Advocate for the Respondents: Mrs. Savita S. Ganoo
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
