ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, A.C.J. 1. Heard Mr. Ananda Sen learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. S. Akhtar learned standing counsel No. 11. 2. In this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order daled 20.1.2006 passed by-Sub- Divisional Officer-cum-Certificate Officer, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur in Certificate Case No. 71(BL)/2004-05 whereby the objection field by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Public Demand Recovery Act has been rejected and distress warrant has been issued for recovery of the certificate dues. 3. The facts of the ease lie in a very narrow compass: Petitioner availed loan facility from the respondent-Union Bank of India. When the petitioner failed to liquidate the loan amount together with interest, a certificate proceeding was initiated for recovery of the said dues of the Bank. The Certificate Officer issued notice under Section 7 of the Public Demand Recovery Act calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why certificate dues could not be recovered from him. Petitioner appeared and filed objection under Section 9 of the said Act challenging the jurisdiction of the Certificate Officer to entertain certificate proceeding. Petitioners case is that in order to avoid warrant of arrest, he deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/-in the loan account and thereafter, on perusal of the record he found that certificate proceeding has been initiated for recovery of Rs. 10,14,835.41/-. 4. Mr. Ananda Sen, learned Counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that the certificate Court has no jurisdiction to entertain certificate case of recovery of the amount exceeding Rs. 10 lacs. Learned Counsel submitted that only Debt Recovery Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain application for recovery of the amount more than Rs. 10 lacs. 5. Mr. M.S. Akhtar, learned SC-II, referring counter affidavit filed by the respondent-Bank, stated that certificate case was instituted for recovery of Rs. 9, 95,835.41 together with interest incurred by the Bank on account of Court-fee and other litigation expenses. Learned Counsel, therefore, contended that certificate Court has jurisdiction to proceed with the case for recovery of the dues. 6. Recovery of Debt due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was enacted to provide for establishment of Tribunals for expeditious adjudication and recovery of Debt Due to Banks and other Financial institutions. Learned Counsel, therefore, contended that certificate Court has jurisdiction to proceed with the case for recovery of the dues. 6. Recovery of Debt due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was enacted to provide for establishment of Tribunals for expeditious adjudication and recovery of Debt Due to Banks and other Financial institutions. Section 1 of the Act is worth to be quoted herein below: Short title, Extent, commencement and application.- (I) This may be called the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. (2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. (3) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 24th day of June, 1993. (4) The provisions of this Act shall not apply where the amount of debt due to any bank or financial institution or to a consortium of banks or financial institutions is less than ten lakh rupees or such other amount being not less than one lakh rupees, as the Central Government may, by notification, specify. 7. From bare perusal of Sub-section (4) of Section 1, it is manifestly clear that provisions of the Act shall apply where the amount of Debt due to any Bank or Financial Institutions is 10 lakh or above. The term Debt has been defined in Section 2(g) of the Act, which means any liability inclusive of interest, which is claimed as due from any person by a bank or other financial institution. Section 2(g) reads as under: "Debt" means any liability (inclusive of interest) which is claimed as due from any person by a bank or a financial institution or by a consortium of banks or financial institutions during the course of any business activity undertaken by the bank or the financial institution or the consortium under any law for the time being in force, in cash, or otherwise, whether secured or unsecured, or assigned, or whether payable under a decree or order of any civil Court or any arbitration award or otherwise or under a mortgage and subsisting on, any legally recoverable on, the date of application. 8. It is, therefore, clear that "debt" means any amount recoverable by the Bank inclusive of interest. In other words interest has to be included in the term debt and not the litigation expenses i.e. Court-fee, litigation cost etc. 8. It is, therefore, clear that "debt" means any amount recoverable by the Bank inclusive of interest. In other words interest has to be included in the term debt and not the litigation expenses i.e. Court-fee, litigation cost etc. The contention of the petitioner, therefore, that the cost that may be awarded shall also be included in the actual dues for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal cannot be accepted. 9. In the instant case from perusal of the notice issued under Section 7 of the Public Demand Recovery Act, total amount recoverable from the petitioner inclusive of interest is Rs. 9, 95,835.41 paise. For the recovery of the aforesaid amount the respondent-Bank deposited Court-fee of Rs. 19,000/-. In my considered opinion, therefore, this Court-fee of Rs. 19,000/-can not and shall not be added in the actual dues for the purpose of ousting jurisdiction of certificate Court. Admittedly, the amount claimed by the respondent-Bank inclusive of interest is Rs. 9, 95,835.41 paise. The Certificate Officer, therefore, rightly rejected the objection raised by the petitioner with regard to its jurisdiction. 10. For the aforesaid reason, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Certificate Officer. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.