Court fee on SARFAESI applications upheld as a valid statutory levy, and rule 7 was properly extended.

Court fee may validly be imposed on applications under section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, and the notification extending rule 7 of the DRT (Procedure) Rules to such proceedings was upheld. The Court distinguished Mardia Chemicals on the ground that the impugned levy was a statutory fee for adjudicatory services, not a pre-deposit of debt. It also held that sections 17(3) and 18(2) reflected legislative intent to apply the 1993 recovery framework and rules to proceedings under the 2002 Act, so the extension of rule 7 mutatis mutandis was within power and not unconstitutional or oppressive.

---

---

Issues: Whether a court fee could validly be demanded on applications filed under section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and whether the notification extending rule 7 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 to such proceedings was ultra vires or unconstitutional; and whether the fee prescribed for such proceedings was oppressive or unreasonable.

Analysis: The challenge based on Mardia Chemicals was rejected because the deposit struck down there was a pre-deposit of part of the claimed debt, whereas court fee is a statutory levy imposed to meet the cost of adjudicatory facilities. The Court held that section 17(3) and section 18(2) of the 2002 Act evinced legislative intent to apply the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and the rules made thereunder to proceedings under the 2002 Act, and the notification merely gave effect to that intention by applying rule 7 mutatis mutandis. The fee could not be treated as an unconstitutional burden, especially when the statutory scheme provided an independent adjudicatory remedy and protection against harassment by way of costs and compensation.

Conclusion: The demand for court fee and the notification extending rule 7 to proceedings under section 17(1) were upheld, and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were dismissed, and the court fee requirement for proceedings under the 2002 Act was sustained as a valid statutory incident of the appellate remedy.

---