SHRI SURESH KUMAR CHHABRA vs UNION BANK OF INDIA on 18 May 2022

CONTD. ORDER€HEET DATE PAGE No CASE No REIARK NDN1228/21 18t05t22 DESCRIPTIOI{ OF THE ORDER Appticant by Shri Wajid Hyder, Advocate Respondent No.-1 by Shri Rajesh Chouhan, Advocate None for Respondent No. -2 By this order the issue with regard to deposit of deficit Court Fee of Rs. 20,800.00 is being disposed of. The brief facts of the case are that the Appticant had availed certain credit facilities from the Respondent- Bank for which he had mortgaged 10 properties of the partners/ guarantors / mortgagers. The payment defaulted and the Respondent-Bank fited OA No.- 74l10 against M/s Chhabra Machineris & Others. ln the said OA the Judgment was pronounced and Recovery Certificate issued accordingty. During the pendency of the RC, OTS arrived at between the borrowers/ guarantors and the Bank and accordingly the Appticant deposited Rs. 71 .75 Lac towards f-u[t and final setttement of dues. Thereafter the Bank had withdrawn the recovery proceedings on24/0g116 and atI the originaI titte deeds of 10 mortgaged properties were returned by the Bank which inctudes Property bearing Khasra No.-29016 &.291 lZ, measuring 0.219 hec NB 799, pH No.-65 (New No._14) situated at Mouja Hirdepur, Tehsit & Distt.-Damoh belonging to Appticant. The Appticant subsequentty received the information about the sale of said property by the Bank onty when the Respondent No._2 fited the mutation apptication. As the Appticant had deposited the entire compromise amount and there is no outstanding due, he has paid the Court Fee of Rs. 200- as per Rute 13(2Xi)(e) of Security lnterest (Enforcement) Rutes but the Appticant contended that the Registrar vide Order dated 10/09/21 was "r,r?l:orl ty directing the Appticant to deposit additional Court Fee of Rs. 20,80ti.00 on the Sasis of Demand Notice or possession Notice. . The Counsel for Appticant argued that the Appticant had cleared atl outstanding dues tong ugo "n-i;i ;n fiting of the present SA ihere *ur-no"orirLnaing against the Appticant. He contended ti,.i ln" recovery proceedings in OA Ex 52l 1 3 was atso withdrawn by the Bank on 24/08116 which atso proves his contention that as on date there is no dues against the Appticant. He vehemently argued that the Registrar without appreciating the facts of the case had incorrectly asked the Appticant for makin additionaI Court Fee of Rs. 20,800/-. g contended that when He atso original titte deeds whi the Bank had returned the ch is in the possession of the en ow e an ha sold the

CONTD. ORDER€HE ET DATE PAGE No REXARK DESCRPNOil OF THE ORDER same in the auction is not only shocking but atso proves that the Bank had ptayed fraud with the ippticant as well and with the Respondent No'-2-' Tire Counset contended that since this fraudulent sate has come to the knowtedge of the Appticant onty recentty after the dues were cteared, the Applicant competied to fite the present SA for quashing the eartier action initiated by the Respondent-Bank and therefore, as there is no outstanding dues at present, the Appticant is not tiabte to pay the fee as directed by the Registrar of this Tribunal' On the other hand, the Counsel for Respondent Bank argued that since the Appticant has challenged the aciion initiated by the Bank under the Securitisation Act, he has to pay the court fee catcutated as per the outstanding shown in the Notice under chatlenge' Considered the argument advanced by the Counsel for the Parties. Perused the retief as sought by the Appl,icant in the Securitisation Application and the retevant provisions of Rute 13 of Security lnterest (Enforcement) Rutes. Admittedly, Appticant is one of the borrower and mortgager who had mortgaged the ProPerty in question at retevant Point of time. ln the retief ctause, the APPlicant Prayed for, setting aside the entire proceedings initiated by the Respondent-Bank incl,uding Possession Notice which was the basis adopted by the. registry for determining the Court Fee. The dues as mentio ned in the atleged Possession Notice Ann. A'11 is Rs. 73,68,948'00' Thus the Applicant who admittedty fatts under the definition of Borrower comes within the Purview of Rute 13(2)(1)(b) fsee table ut r 13J to determine the court fee since he has chattenged and Prays for quashing the said Notice aPart from setting aside other action initiated bY the Bank. As far as dePosit of OTS and presently there is no outstandi ng dues as wett as bankl had returned the originat titte deeds are concerned, these issues needs to be decide d on merits in case the] SA as fited by the Appticant is registered' Thus this Bench do not find any infirmity in .the airection of the Registrar passed on 13/09/21 white asking the Appticant to remove the defautt ano tc i"p"i,, "i deiiclt court Fee of Rs' 20,800'00' The a"ifu.t is directed to remove the defect as pointec ;i;;ih" resistrv within 15 days from today failinl *tl.h tn" Reg-istrir shatt pass necessary order as pet taw' Qu/

CONTD. ORDER€HEET DATE PAGE No RETA,RK DESCRIPTPN OF THE ORDER The Chamber Appeal is accordingty stands disposed of. Record of Chamber Appeal be tagged with the SA. (Ram Niwas Patet) Presiding officer