YES BANK vs OSM PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED on 19 August 2026

Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi TAlt82Ol2023 YES BANK Vs OSM PROJECTS PRTVATE LIMITED 19.08.2026 Item no. 69 Present: Ms. Sonia R9wat, counsel for applicant bank. None for defendants. Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/ Hybrid Mode.

2. IA no.2396 12026 has been filed by the applicant bank for withdrawal of the present OA and refund of the couft fee.

3. The Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank submits that the matter has been setfled and the loan account of the defendants has been closed accordingly. Therefore, it is prayed to withdraw the present OA and prayed for refund of the court fee.

4. Heard the Ld. perused the records. Counsel for appticant bank and

5. The Ld. Counsel of the applicant bank has requested for refund of the court fees. It is submitted that the matter has been setUed and the loan account of the defendants has been closed accordingly, therefore, the court fees may be refunded as per provisions contained in the rules. In this regard theW HonUe Supreme Court has passed the order in SLP(c) No(s).723/2023 dated 2g.Ot.2[2itiiled as Jage Ram Vs Ved Kaur & Ors. The HonUe Supreme Court has considered the matter and has held that: Para 6- The refund-of court fes s permissible only if, the matter s referrd to *niiW Concitiatb4 judr?r?l settlemenf hcludrng tlroyglt'Lok Adalat or CI,

6. In view of the above,TAltA2Ol2O23 is dismissed as withdrawn. The applicant bank has also sought refund of court fee. The matter has not been disposed of on the basis of setUement in Lok Adalat. There appears no occasion to return the court fee. The matter has been withdrawn due to the matter has been setfled and the loan account of the defendants has been closed accordingly. Therefore, the prayer of the applicant bank for refund of court fees is hereby declined. All the pending IAs stand disposed of. IA no.239612O26 is disposed off accordingly. File be consigned to record room. medrbtion for *tttement and the cas is decbd in terms of such a settlement and not otherwis. Para 7- In the case at hanQ, the setflement in terms of which the saond appal was dsidd by the HEh Court is not on reference to any of ine above authonbes/fora rather it was an amicable settlement out of the court Para 8- Accordingly, we are of the opnion that the petitioner is not entrttd to refund of the cout fes and the Hrgh Court has not committed any error or illqality in refusing such a prayer.,, _ --15A( (sus_ry1KUMAR nASrOCr) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi P