KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs IKRA RYE on 9 May 2025

Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi rAl43412022 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED Vs IKRA RYE 09.05.2025 Item no. 36 Present: Shri Mohan Singh, counsel for applicant bank. None for defendants. Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/ Hybrid Mode.

2. IA no.9o4l2025 has been filed 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. Counsel of the applicant bank has requested for refund of the court fees. It is submitted 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 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 9LP(c) No(s).723/2023 datd 28.01.2025 titled as Jage Ram Vs Vd Kaur & Ors. The Honble Supreme Court has considered lhe matter and has held that: e\ a

Para 6- The refund of court fees is permissible only if the matter is referrd to Arbitration, Conciliation, judicial settlement, including through Lok Adalat or mdiation for settlement and the cas is decided in terms of such a settlement and not otherwise. Para 7- In the case at hand, the settlement in terms of which the second appeal was decrded 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 entitld to refund of the court fees and the High Coutt has not committd any error or illegaliU in refusing such a prayer."

6. In view of the above , TAl434l2O22 is dismissed as withdrawn.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 ieturn 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 The matter has been withdrawn due to defendants have paid the full and final payment for settling their dues in their loan accounts maintained with the applicant bank and the Loan account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.9o4l2025 is disposed off accordingly. File be consigned to record room. C)t\ i (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi P