A.L.Shah v. The Authorised Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02.01.2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN A.L.Shah 8, Rule De La Compagnie Pondicherry 605 001.

Appellant(s) Vs

1. The Authorised Officer State Bank Of Hyderabad Pondicherry Branch 108, Kamaraj Salai Pondicherry 605 011.

2. R.Gopal 65, 3rd Cross Thirumal Ngr Kosapalayam Pondicherry 605 013.

Respondent(s) Rev.Appl.No.35 of 2016 A.L.Shah 8, Rule De La Compagnie Pondicherry 605 001.

Appellant(s) Vs

1. The Authorised Officer State Bank Of Hyderabad Pondicherry Branch 108, Kamaraj Salai Pondicherry 605 011.

2. R.Gopal 65, 3rd Cross Thirumal Ngr, Kosapalayam Pondicherry 605 013.

Respondent(s) Rev.Appl.No.36 of 2016 A.L.Shah 8, Rule De La Compagnie Pondicherry 605 001 Appellant(s) Vs

1. The Authorised Officer State Bank Of Hyderabad Pondicherry Branch 108, Kamaraj Salai Pondicherry 605 011.

2. G.Chandrasekar Prop.Sree Devi Abhirami Rice Store, 32, Thatchar Street Nellithope, Pondicherry.

3. R.Gopal Prop.Devi Abhirami Transport 65, 3rd Cross Thirumal Nagar Kosapalayam Pondicherry 605 013.

Respondent(s)

Prayer : Petitions filed under Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC read with Section 114 of CPC to review the order dated 02.02.2016 passed in CRP Nos.1728, 1729 & 1730 of 2015 respectively. For Appellant(s):

Mr.K.Ravi Senior Counsel For Mr.R.Murugan For M/s.Rugan And Arya For Respondent(s):

No Appearance - R1 Not Ready in Notice - R2 & R3

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Applications seeking review of the common order passed by this Court on 18.01.2016 in three CRPs are on the premise that even though petitioner was held liable for payment of fee as provided under Rule 13(1)(c) or 13(1)(d) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, as the case may be, being any other person, applications are filed seeking recall of the operative part of the order which grants petitioner two weeks' time for compliance of the office objection Nos.2 and 3 raised by the office relating to nonpayment of the requisite fee.

2. Learned counsel would submit that even though petitioner had disputed the applicability of the provisions contained in Rule 13(1)(c) or 13(1)(d) of the Rules in the matter of appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, that amount was, in fact, deposited by petitioner while filing appeals. The order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, which was assailed in the CRPs, wrongly proceeded as if apart from other office objections not being complied with by petitioner, even the requisite fee as required under Rule 13(1)(c) or 13(1)(d) was not paid by petitioner.

3. Learned counsel drew attention of this Court to the averments made in three CRPs, as also the amount stated to be deposited at the time of filing of appeals before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

4. It appears that it is not the declaration of law as given by this Court in the order which is sought to be reviewed, but only operative part of the order by which the Court proceeds to grant

time to petitioner to comply with the objections as if petitioner had not paid the fee as is found payable by him under Rule 13(1)(c) or 13(1)(d) as the case may be.

5. We are of the view that it would be suffice to clarify our order under review in the manner that the amount which has been actually deposited by petitioner while filing three appeals shall be duly verified by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. If the fees which has actually been paid by petitioner is found to be in accordance with the requirement under Rule 13(1)(c) or 13(1)(d) as the case may be, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal shall proceed to examine the case on its own merits.

6. The operative part of the order, as contained in paragraph 32, is accordingly clarified in the manner as stated above. Thus, the issue of deposit of fees stands concluded. All other applications before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, including waiver application, shall now be decided on its own merits, taking into consideration that petitioner is neither borrower nor guarantor, but is any other

person.

7. Review applications are disposed of.

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 02.01.2026 Index :

Yes/No Yes/No kpl To The Authorised Officer State Bank Of Hyderabad Pondicherry Branch 108, Kamaraj Salai Pondicherry 605 011.

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

(kpl) 02.01.2026