Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Seth Banshidhar Kedia Rice Mills ... vs State Bank Of India on 18 July, 2012
W.P. No. 6190/2012
18.7.2012
Shri Akshat Agrawal, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent.
With consent heard finally.
In Original Application filed by respondent Bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for recovery of Rs.1,67,90,460.80 the right of the petitioner to file written statement was closed by the Tribunal by order dated 19.4.2011; whereagainst, petitioners filed a review application. The same was also dismissed on 16.11.2011. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal before Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal by impugned order dated 16.11.2011 though granted leave to the petitioners to file written statement, but subjected the same to the cost of Rs.50,000/ on each of the appellants. The direction to pay cost of Rs.50,000/ by each of the appellants is the cause for the present petition.
Regarding imposition of cost by the Courts the law is trite that it is within the discretion of the Court to impose such costs. In Ashok Kumar Mittal v. Ram Kumar Gupta and another (2009) 2 SCC 656 it is observed:
7. The present system of levying meagre costs in civil matters (or no costs in some matters), no doubt, is wholly unsatisfactory and does not act as a deterrent to vexatious or luxury litigation borne out of ego or greed, or resorted to as a `buyingtime' tactic. More realistic approach relating to costs may be the need of the hour......"
Therefore, the exercise of discretion by the Appellate Tribunal of imposing cost on the petitioner cannot be faulted with.
In respect of quantification, it is observed by their Lordships in Ashok Kumar Mittal (supra) that "... .... huge costs of the order of Rs. Fifty thousand or Rs.One lakh, are normally awarded only in writ proceedings and public interest litigations, and not in civil litigation to which sections 35 and 35A are applicable. The principles and practices relating to levy of costs in administrative law matters cannot be imported mechanically in relation to civil litigation governed by the Code.
In view of above proponement, we are of the considered opinion that in the case at hand imposition of cost of Rs.50,000/ for each appellants would be punitive, instead cause of justice would be subserved if a composite cost of Rs.50,000/ is imposed on appellants.
We, therefore, modify the order to the said extent. Let the cost of Rs.50,000/ be deposited with the Debts Recovery Tribunal within a period of 15 days from today. On depositing such cost, the Tribunal would take on record the written statement furnished by the petitioner. It is, however, made clear that if no written statement is filed along with cost, no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioners and the Tribunal shall proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law.
The petition is disposed of finally in above terms. C.c. as per rules.
(AJIT SINGH ) (SANJAY YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
VT/