BANK OF BARODA vs M/s JD Alloys on 30 April 2025

Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi TAlt277l2022 BAilK OF BARODA Vs M/S JD ALLOYS 30.04.202s Item no. 25 Present Shri Amit Mahaliyan, counsel for applicant bank. Ms. Kashika Singla, counsel for defendants. Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/ Hybrid Mode.

2. IA No.379Ll2O24 is filed by the applicant bank for substitution of authorized representative. The IA is formal in nature, hence, it is allowed.

3. IA no.379212024 has been filed by the appticant bank for withdrawal of the present TA.

4. The Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank submits that the matter has been settled between the parties under the OTS and the OTS amount has been received by the applicant bank. It is further submitted that applicant bank has issued a No dues Certificate to the borrower. He further submits that he wishes to withdraw the present OA. Ld. Counsel for applicant bank also prayed refund of the court fee.

5. Heard the Ld. Counsel for applicant bank and perused the records.

6. The Ld. Counsel of the applicant bank has requested for refund of the court fees. It is submitted that matter has been settled between the parties and No dues Certificate has been issued by the bank. and therefore, the court fees may be refunded as per provisions contained in the rules. In this regard the HonUe Supreme Couft has passed ilF order in SLp(c) h

No(s).723/2023 dad 28.01.2025 tifld as Jage Ram Vs Vd Kaur & Ors. The Hontle Supreme Couft has considered the matter and has held that: Pan 6- The refund of court fes is prmssible only if, the matter is referd to ArbitratioO Conciliatio4 judicial stdement including through Lok Adalat or mediation for setflement and the cae is decidd in terms of such a settlement and not otherwis. Para 7- In the cae at hand, the stflement n terms of which the wond appal was dstded by the High Court is not on reference to any of the above authoritres/fora rather it was an amicable settlement out of the court Pan 8- Actordingly, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitld to refund of the court frc and the High Court has not committd any error or illqality in refusing such a prayer."

7. In view of the above, TAlL277 12O22 is dismissed as withdrawn. The applicant bank has also sought refund of couft fee. The matter has not been disposed of on the basis of settlement in Lok Adalat. There appears no occasion to return the court fee. The matter has been withdrawn due to matter is amicably settled between the parties and the settlement amount has already been received by the applicant bank. Therefore, the prayer of the applicant bank for refund of court fees is hereby declined. All the pending IAs stand disposed of. IA no.379212024 is disposed off accordingly. File be consigned to record room. * ==._ S-\ (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi P