Aarti Gunjikar vs IDBI Bank Ltd AND 4 ORS on 3 November 2026

Sr. No.01 FARAD DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - MUMBAI DrARy NO. 1537 OF 2026 (MISC APPLICATTON) Next Date Date 03.11.2026 ROZNAMA The Appellant In-person appeared. None for the Respondents. The applicant has filed the present Miscellaneous Application dated 28.08.2026 seeking refund of Court Fee amounting to Rs.29,7501- stated to have been deposited before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Mumbai, in connection with an appeal preferred against the decision/order of the Recovery Officer rejecting her bid in the auction proceedings. The applicant has contended that she is a third party and not a borrower/debtor in the recovery proceedings and, therefore, is not liable to pay the Court Fee of Rs.29,7501-. It is stated that, at the time of filing the said appeal before DRFII, Mumbai, she had initially deposited Court Fee of Rs.250/-, but was subsequently called upon to deposit an additional amount of Rs.29,750/- for entertaining the appeal. On examination of the averments made in the present application and the documents filed therewith, it is noticed that the applicant had also challenged the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT:II, Mumbai, before this Tribunal by filing Regular Appeal No.75l2025. The said appeal was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 2l.Ol.2o26,upholding the auction procedure adopted by the Recovery Officer. It is further noticed that the applicant had thereafter approached the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay by filing Writ Petition (L) No.3355 of 2026. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Couft v

o) \ rr\ z(

dated 23.04.2026. As per the order of the Hon'ble High Court, the Court observed that no enabling provision entitling the petitioner to claim refund of the Court Fee had been pointed out and rejected the prayer relating to refund of Court Fee. In the present application, the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 26.08.2013 passed by this Tribunal in Miscellaneous Appeal No.112 of 2013, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Navsynth Chemicals and Others, decided on 26.08.2013, wherein the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of that case, had directed refund of the Court Fee paid by the appellant. It is also noticed that the applicant has subsequently filed an affidavit dated 15.10.2026 stating, inter alia, that the matter is neither sub judice nor pending before any Court and that no case in respect of the matter is presently pending before any Court. In view of the above facts, particularly the dismissal of Regular Appeal No.7512025 by this Tribunal and the subsequent dismissal of Writ Petition (L) No.3355 of 2026 by the Hon'ble High Court, wherein the prayer relating to refund of Court Fee was also rejected, the maintainability of the present Miscellaneous Application seeking substantially the same relief requires consideration. It is also considered appropriate to place before the Hon'ble Chairperson the applicant's reliance upon the judgment in Miscellaneous Appeal No.112 of 2013, as well as the effect and applicability of the aforesaid judgment in the light of the subsequent proceedings and the order dated 23.04.2026 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the applicant's own case. The affidavit dated 15.10.202G filed by the applicant regarding the absence of any pending proceedings may also kindly be considered in the context of the earlier proceedings referred to hereinabove, which appear to have been finally disposed of. tr\,t-oLL 4 Or t Accordingly, the matter is respectfully placed before the Hon'ble Chairperson for appropriate orders/directions regarding the maintainability and further course of action in the present Miscellaneous Application. Submitted for kind consideration and orders. o9\ rr\,r,t, }L (Prabhupada Panda) Registrar DRAL Mumbai 14.12.2026 4^,-rt,