Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6759 (UTT)

RAJESH KUMAR v. DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

WPMB/472/2026 · 2026-06-10

Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, Subhash Upadhyay

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:4631-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY 10th June, 2026 WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 472 OF 2026 Rajesh Kumar and another. ….Petitioners. Versus Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and others. ……Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Ravindra S. Rawat, learned counsel. Counsel for the respondents : Sri Nikhil Singhal, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 7. JUDGMENT : (PER: SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.) 1. The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.04.2026 passed by DRAT, Allahabad, by which the Restoration Application filed by the writ petitioners for restoring their Appeal, dismissed for non-payment of complete court fees, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are ready to deposit the entire amount of Court fees. 3. It appears that at the time of filing appeal before DRAT, the petitioners paid only half of the court fees on the ground that they were third parties, and therefore liable to pay only half of the amount of court fees ordinarily payable. The Tribunal has held that the petitioners had purchased half share of one of the partners of M/s Piyush Industries to whom credit facilities were granted by the Bank and consequently, they have stepped into the shoes of the person creating equitable mortgage and the industry to whom the loan was given, therefore, they were liable to pay the full court fees. In the event, the petitioners are ready to pay the entire court 2026:UHC:4631-DB 2 fees, it shall be open to them to move appropriate application in this regard before DRAT so that the same is considered. 4. As merits of the order is not being assailed, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to move appropriate application before DRAT, along with the evidence of payment of full Court Fees, so that the said application is considered in accordance with law. 5. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed. _____________________ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J. ___________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dt: 10th June, 2026 Rathour PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Digitally signed by PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779d9e3aeb10 97d17dbb53d481cabd25946eed, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A40CC6179B 8E010331BA695239171F906FD5C45C4E8, cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2026.06.11 14:57:47 +05'30'