https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110221 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. en-us Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Apr 2012 12:25:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110221 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110221