JUDGMENT : A.Muhamed Mustaque, Acg.C.J. This appeal addresses an important issue regarding the procedure to be followed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) while considering the challenge raised under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002. The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (in short 'SIE Rules) prescribed different table of fees for challenge to be raised under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. It is appropriate to refer Rule 13 of SIE Rules, which reads as follows; “13. Fees for applications and appeals under Sections 17 and 18 of the Act (1) Every application under sub-section (1) of section 17 or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (1) of section 18 shall be accompanied by a fee provided in the sub-rule (2) and such fee may be remitted through a crossed demand draft drawn on a bank or Indian Postal Order in favour of the Registrar of the Tribunal or the Court as the case may be, payable at the place where the Tribunal or the Court is situated. (2) The amount of fee payable shall be as follows: No. Nature of Application Amount of Fee payable 1 Application to a Debt Recovery Tribunal under sub-section (1) of section 17 against any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 (a) Where the applicant is a borrower and the amount of debt due is less than Rs. 10 lakhs Rs.500 for every Rs. 1 lakh or part thereof (b) Where the applicant is a borrower and the amount of debt due is Rs. 10 lakhs and above Rs.5,000+Rs. 250 for every Rs.1 lakh or part thereof in excess of Rs. 10 lakhs subject to a maximum of Rs. 1,00,000 (c) Where the applicant is an aggrieved party other than the borrower and where the amount of debt due is less than Rs. 10 lakhs Rs.125 for every Rupees One lakh or part thereof (d) Where the applicant is an aggrieved party other than the borrower and where the amount of debt due is Rs. 10 lakhs and above Rs.1250+Rs. 125 for every Rs.1 lakh or part thereof in excess of Rs. 10 lakhs Rs.125 for every Rupees One lakh or part thereof (d) Where the applicant is an aggrieved party other than the borrower and where the amount of debt due is Rs. 10 lakhs and above Rs.1250+Rs. 125 for every Rs.1 lakh or part thereof in excess of Rs. 10 lakhs subject to a maximum of Rs.50, 000 (e) Any other application by any Rs.200 2 Appeal to the Appellate Authority against any order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal under section 17 Same fees as provided at clauses (a) to (e) of serial number 1 of this rule. 2. The Registrar of the Tribunal noted that the appellant is guarantor and therefore, the appellant has to pay higher slab of the fees prescribed for entertaining such challenge under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Aggrieved by that, the appellant herein invoked the remedy under Rule 5(5) of the Debt Recovery Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1993 before the Presiding Officer concerned. The Presiding Officer affirmed the order of the Registrar. The challenge has been made before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge relegated the appellant to invoke appellate remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act before the Appellate Tribunal. 3. The Debt Recovery Tribunal Procedure Rules prescribes various procedures regarding filing scrutiny of application etc. In Rule 5, it is stipulated that if the Registrar raised an objection noting defects, an appeal would lie before the Presiding Officer and the Presiding Officer will take a decision in the chamber and that decision is final. It is appropriate to refer Rule 5 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1993, which reads as follows; “5. Presentation and scrutiny of applications (1) The Registrar, or, as the case may be, the officer authorised by him under rule 4, shall endorse on every application the date on which it is presented or deemed to have been presented under that rule and shall sign endorsement. (2) If on scrutiny, the application is found to be in order, it shall be duly registered and given a serial number. (2) If on scrutiny, the application is found to be in order, it shall be duly registered and given a serial number. (3) If the application, on scrutiny, is found to be defective and the defect noticed is formal in nature, the Registrar may allow the party to rectify the same in his presence and if the said defect is not formal in nature, the Registrar, may allow the applicant such time to rectify the defect as he may deem fit. (4) If the concerned applicant fails to rectify the defect within the time allowed in sub rule(3), the Registrar may by order and for reasons to be recorded in writing, decline to register the application. (5) An appeal against the order of the Registrar under sub-rule (4) shall be made within 15 days of the making of such order to the Presiding Officer concerned in chamber whose decision thereon shall be final.” 4. As seen from the above Procedure Rules, it is in respect of formal defect, such procedure will have to be resorted. If there is any other defects in regard to the status of a party, that cannot be decided by the Registrar or the Presiding Officer in chamber. It requires a formal adjudication. That be the case, in a matter like this where, the appellant claims that the appellant is not a borrower or guarantor and the appellant is aggrieved by the action initiated under the SARFAESI Act, what is the table of fees to be accompanied by such application will have to be decided by the Tribunal on the judicial side. The matter will have to be placed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing the appellant and the bank, will have to take a decision and once a decision is taken that the appellant is a guarantor or borrower, the Tribunal can insist the appellant to pay the higher fee within a time allowed and if it is not paid, the DRT can reject such application. Instead of doing so, in deciding such a substantial issue, the DRT followed a procedure that is being followed for formal defect. This cannot be treated as a formal defect. This is a question that can be decided only through the adjudication. 5. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. Instead of doing so, in deciding such a substantial issue, the DRT followed a procedure that is being followed for formal defect. This cannot be treated as a formal defect. This is a question that can be decided only through the adjudication. 5. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. We direct the DRT to place this matter before the Tribunal and after hearing both sides, the Tribunal shall take an appropriate decision as to the status. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 18.09.2024 and then the Tribunal can decide the matter whether the appellant is a guarantor or borrower. If the Tribunal forms an opinion that the appellant is guarantor or borrower, the Tribunal shall grant such time to the appellant to pay the necessary fees applicable and if it is not paid, the Tribunal is free to reject the application. Any auction will be subject to any decision taken by the DRT. This writ appeal is disposed of as above.