MR SHATISH RAMESHBHAI MASHARU vs BANK OF BARODA on 21 June 2024

**ORDER**

1. 1. The Appellants have filed the present Chamber Appeal with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 31/01/2024 passed by Ld. Registrar of this Tribunal.

2. 2. It is the case of the Appellants that Ld. Registrar raised objection regarding deficit Court Fees and instructed to pay Rs.11,000/- towards deficit Court Fees on the Securitisation Application lodged by the Applicants with the office of this Tribunal. The last measure taken by the Respondent Bank was in the form of issuance of Sale Notice dated 14/12/2023 and the amount mentioned in the said notice is 1,40,82,874.08 as on the date of sale and the Applicants have paid Court Fees of Rs.37,755/- /

on the basis of figure displayed on the official website of DRT while registering the matter online. Ld. Registrar has interpreted meaning of the word "debt" to mean any liability (inclusive of interest) which is claimed as due from any person by Bank or a financial institution. According to Ld. Registrar, in the Demand Notice dated 07/08/2021, amount, inclusive of interest, was calculated upto 31/07/2021 only and rate of interest applicable on outstanding amount has also been mentioned in the Demand Notice. Despite this, the Applicants knowingly did not calculate further interest for payment of Court Fees. Therefore, Registry has calculated deficit Court Fees to the tune of Rs.11,000/-. Ld. Registrar has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.8969 of 2022 titled as **M/s Sidha Nilkanth Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. V/s Prudent ARC Ltd. & Ors. decided on 05/01/2023.**

1. 3. As against this, relying upon judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in SCA No.9564 of 2023 in the case of M/s Shree Rajmoti Industries V/s The Authorised Officer, Union Bank of India, Ld. Counsel for the Applicants submitted that the Hon'ble High Court while deciding the pre-deposit amount, consider that the pre-deposit amount requires to be calculated on the amount mentioned by the Respondent Bank in notice u/s 13(2) of SARFEASI Act. She further submitted that as per the

prevailing procedure across all the DRTs and the country, no such calculations are being carried out by Registrar for the purpose of Court Fees and Court Fees are levied on the basis of last amount mentioned by the Bank in the last measure. She further submitted that the interpretation made by Ld. Registrar regarding Court Fees is misconceived and hence the impugned order passed by him deserves to be quashed and set aside.

1. 4. In order to resolve controversy raised by the Applicants, it would be worthwhile to refer to the following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s Sidha Nilkanth Paper Industries' case (Supra):

*"16. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, in the present case, the respective High Courts have seriously erred in directing to adjust/appropriate the amount realised by auction sale of the secured properties/deposited by the auction purchasers while considering the 50% of the amount as pre-deposit to be deposited by the borrower, while preferring an appeal before the DRAT. Even the High Court of Delhi has erred in excluding the amount payable towards interest while considering the "debt due". As per Section 2(g) of the Act 1993, "debt" means liability inclusive of interest as claimed by the bank/financial institution."*

1. 5. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Tribunal is of the view that the

Applicants are bound to pay Court Fees on the amount claimed by the Respondent Bank in the Demand Notice issued u/s 13(2) of SARFEASI Act by including interest payable on the said amount. In the case on hand, Registry appears to have rightly calculated amount of claim, by including interest from 01/08/2021 at the rate of interest given in column no.4 of para 1 of the notice dated 07/08/2021 for each facility. Hence, this Tribunal is not inclined to interfere with the objection of deficit Court Fees raised by Ld. Registrar and accordingly the present Chamber Appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.

File be consigned to record.

Pronounced in open Court on 21^st day of June, 2024.

(Laxman Madnani) Presiding Officer DRT-II, Ahmedabad