CORPORATION BANK vs SHRI AMIT KUMAR on 14 July 2026

Debts RecovelT Tribunal-Il' Delhi TAtLo24l2023 CORPORATIOTT gANTVS SHRI AMIT KUMAR L4.07.2026 Item no'59 Present: Sh. Yogesh Pachauri, Counsel for applicant bank None for defendants matter and has held that: Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/ Hybrid Mode' IA no.1988 t2O26 dated 14'07'2026 has been filed by the uppfi*nt bank for withdrawal of the present TA' The Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank submitted that during the p""d""q, of the aror",aid TA, the defendants approached the applicant bank and gu'; p'opo*l for settlement of dues of the defendants in loan accounts i'e' t'lr' Amit Kumar' Sumit Kumar & Mr. Anamika Kumari' The defendants had paid the entire setttement amount of Rs'82'49 Lacs to the applicant bank as per settlement with the default interest and the account is accordingly closed' The NOC of closure of Loan account of the Defendant dated 18'11'2025 is annexed' He further submits that he wish to withdraw ihe present TA' The Ld' Counsel for applicant bank also prayed for return of the original documents' TheLd.Counselfortheapplicantbankhasalso requested for refund of the court fees' It is submitted that the matter has been settled and therefore' the court fees may be refunded as per provisions contained in the rules' In this regard the Honble Sup,"'" iourt has passed the order in SLP(c) NoG).723/2023 aated ia'ot'2025 titted as Jage Ram Vs Ved Kaur & Orc. The nonttt Supreme Court has considered the Para 6- The refund of court fes is permissible only ';'-th; ,ri", is refeffd to Arbitration' Conciliation' ',Liiiri iil"i"it inctudins throush Lok Adatat or ';i;;;;'i;;'iir"i"nt aid tne case is decidd in 'i"r*-ii tirn a settlement and not otherwis' Para 7- In the case at hand, the settlement in terms 'i*iiriiii sona aipeaiwas dqidd bv the Hish ;;;-;";i-in ,"i"'"n'" to anY of. the. above Z-rtn"in"t/f"* rather it was an qrytiable sttlement out ofthe court- S\

Para B' Acordingly, we are of the opinion that the iitnr", is not enti*ea b refund of the court fes 'ui in" High Court has not committd any eror or itegitity iirefusing such a prayer"' In view of the above, it'is clear that if the matter has been settled out of the court without any reference from the court or Tribunal' the court fees cannot be refunded' Therefore' the prayer of the .rr*a bank for refund of couft fees is hereby declined' In view of the above submission made by the Ld' Counsel for applicant bank, IA no'1988/2026 is allowed ' f Nfi2412023 is dismissed as withdrawn' Registty is directed to return the original documents after keeping the certified copies on records. Fite be consigned to record room' il (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi