Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs BIJENDER SINGH on 9 May 2025
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi TAl98sl2022 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED Vs BUENDER SINGH 09.0s.2025 Item no. 29 Present: Shri Mohan Singh, counsel for applicant bank. None for defendants. Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/ Hybrid Mode.
2. IA no.1323lZO2S has been fited by the applicant bank for withdrawal of the present TA.
3. The Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank submits that defendants have paid the full and final payment for settling their dues in their loan accounts maintained with the applicant bank and the Loan account has been closed. Therefore, he wishes to withdraw the present OA. Ld. Counsel for applicant bank also prayed for refund of the court fee.
4. Heard the Ld. Counsel for applicant bank and perused the records.
5. The Ld. Counselofthe applicant bank has requested for refund of the court fees. It is submitted that defendants have paid the full and final payment for setiling their dues in their loan accounts maintained with the applicant bank and the Loan account has been closed and therefore, the court fees may be refunded as per provisions contained in the rules. In this regard the Honble Supreme Court has passed the order in SLp(c) No(s).723/2023 datd 28.01.2025 tittd as Jage Ram Vs Vd Kaur & Orc. The Honble Supreme Court has consideredfhe matter and has held that: e"\ -
Para 6- The refund of court fres is permissible only if the matter is referrd to Arbitration, Conciliation, judicial settlement, including through Lok Adalat or mediation for settlement and the case is decided in terms of such a settlement and not otherwise. Para 7- In the case at hand, the sexlement in terms of which the second appeal was decided by the High Court is not on reference to any of the above authorities/fora rather it was an amicable settlement out of the court. Para 8- Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to refund of the court fees and the High Court has not committd any enor or illegality in refusing such a prayer."
6. In view of the above, TAl985l2O22 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 occasion to return the court fee. The matter has been withdrawn due to defendants have paid the full and final payment for settling their dues in their loan accounts maintained with the applicant bank and the Loan account has been closed. Therefore, the prayer of the applicant bank for refund of court fees is hereby declined. All the pending IAs stand disposed of. IA no.1323/2o25 is disposed off accordingly. File be consigned to record room. c^' (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi P