SARFAESI court fee rules: third-party Section 18 appeal falls under the specific appeal fee schedule, not the residuary entry.

The expression "any person" in Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act is of wide import and extends to a borrower, guarantor, or any other aggrieved person. The court fee rules must be read as a whole: the specific fee entries for applications or appeals by a borrower or by an aggrieved person other than the borrower govern substantive challenges to measures under Sections 17 and 18, while the residuary entry for "any other application by any person" is confined to matters outside that core challenge framework. A third-party appellant filing a Section 18 appeal against dismissal of a SARFAESI application was therefore required to pay the prescribed appeal fee, and the direction to pay the deficit court fee was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appellant, being a third party aggrieved by measures taken under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, is required to pay court fee for an appeal under Section 18 in accordance with Rule 13(2)(c) and (d) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, or whether the residuary fee under Rule 13(2)(e) applies.

Analysis: The application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal had been filed as a challenge to measures taken under Section 13(4) of the Act. The Court held that the expression "any person" in Section 17(1) is of wide import and includes a borrower, guarantor, or any other person aggrieved by the action. The fee structure in Rule 13 distinguishes between applications by a borrower, by an aggrieved person other than the borrower, and by any other person. Reading the Rule as a whole, the residuary entry for "any other application by any person" was held to cover only applications other than the main application or appeal challenging measures under Sections 17 or 18. Since the petitioner had filed a substantive appeal under Section 18 against dismissal of his SARFAESI application, his case fell within the fee schedule applicable to appeals under Rule 13(2)(c) and (d), not the residuary fee provision.

Conclusion: The petitioner was liable to pay the prescribed court fee for the appeal under Section 18, and the direction to pay the deficit court fee was upheld.

---