STATE BANK OF INDIA vs NITIN KUMAR SINGH on 18 September 2026

Debts RecoverY Tribunal-Il, l'elhi tAltosl2024 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS NITIN KUMAR SINGH AND ANR 1g.09.2026 Item no' 57 Present: Shri lP Gupta, counsel for applicant bank. None for defendants' Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/ Hybrid Mode.

2. IAno.1899/2o26hasbeenfiledbytheapplicantbankfor withdrawal of the present OA and refund of the court fee'

3. The Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank has submitted that defendant no. t had paid the whole loan amount for his loan account (i.e.34246097498); in full and final settlement' and ultimately the loan account was paid fully' and as such nothing remained outstanding and no cause of action to continue the present case' Therefore, this application for withdrawal of the case being settled and satisfied' Therefore' it is prayed to withdraw the present TA and prayed for refund of the couft fee' 4 HeardtheLd'Counselforapplicantbankandperusedthe records.

5. The Ld. Counsel of the applicant bank has requested for refund of the coutt fees' It is submitted that defendant no' t had paid the whole loan amount for his loan account (i.e.34246097498); in full and final settlement' and ultimately the loan account was paid fully, therefore' the coutt fees may be refunded as per provisions contained in the rules' In this regard theW Honble Supreme Court has passed the order in SLP(c) No(s).723l2023 dated 28.01'2025 Utledas-Jage Ram vs Ved Kaur d &Ors. The Hontle Supreme Court has considered the matter and has held that: Para 6- The refund of court fes is permisible only it the matter is referrd to Arbitation, bncilia1bn' iudicial seltlement, including through Lok Adatat or mdiafrbn for setilement and the case is dxidd in terms of such a settlement and not otherwise, Para 7- In the case at hand, the settlement in terms of which the stond appeal was decidd by the High Court is not on reference o any of the above authoities/fora rather it was an amicable settlement out of the court' Para 8- Acordingly, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitld to refund of the court fees and the High Court has not committd any error or itlqality in refusing such a prayer."

6. In view of the above, TAltOSlzO24 is dismissed as withdrawn.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 settlement in Lok Adalat' There appears no occaslon to return the court fee. The matter has been withdrawn due to defendant no' 1 had paid the whole loan amount for his loan account (i.e.34246097498); in full and final settlemen! and ultimately the loanaccountwaspaidfully.Therefore,t{teprayerofthe applicant bank for refund of court fees is hereby declined' All the pending IAs stand disposed of' IA no'1899/2026 is disposed off accordinglY' File be consigned to recqrd room' erx (SUSHIL KU TTAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi P