CORPORATION BANK vs VIVEK RAJOLA on 23 October 2026

Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi rAlLooBl2023 CORPORATION BANK VS VIVEK RA,OLA

23. L0.2026 Item no. 57 Present: Shri Raman Kumar, counselfor applicant bank. None for defendants. Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/ Hybrid Mode.

2. Iil no.L27312026 has been filed by $e applicant bank for withdrawal of the present matter, refund of the court fees and return of the original documents.

3. The Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank submits that defendant no. 1 approached the applicant bank for an amicable settlement, and the subject accounVMatter was settled/upgraded on the terms and conditions mentioned in the present IA. It is submitted that, in terms of the settlement as mentioned in the present LA, defendant no. t has paid a sum of Rs.21,50,000.00 on

09. t0.2024 in the subject account, and the applicant bank agreed to move an application to withdraw the present TA in terms of the above-stated settlement. Therefore, it is prayed to withdraw the present OA and prayed for refund of the court fee and return of the original documents.

4. Heard the Ld. Counsel of 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 in terms of the settlement as mentioned in the present IA, defendant no. t has paid a sum of Rs.21,50,000.00 on 09.10.2024 in the subject account, therefore, the court fees may be refunded as per provisions contained in the rules. In this regard theW Hontle Supreme Court has passed the order in SLP(c) No(s).723l2023 dated 28.01.2025 titled as Jage $ag_Vs Ved Kaur & Ors. The c\

Hontle Supreme Court has considered the matter and has held that: Para 6- The refund of court fes is permissrble only if, the matter is referrd to Arbitation, hnciliation, judicial setflement, including through Lok Adalat or mdbUbn for stflement and the case is dsrdd in terms of such a settlement and not otherwis. Para 7- In the ca# at hand the rettlement in terms of which the wond appeal was duidd by the High Court is not on reference to any of the above authorities/fora rather it was an amicable settlement out of the coutt Para 8- Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the petitioner b not entifld to refund of the couft frc and the High Court has not committd any error or illegality in refusing such a prayer.'

6. In view of the above, TAllOO8l2O23 is dismissed as withdrawn. Registry is dirccted to return the original documents after keeping the ceftified copies on recold. 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 in terms of the setdement as mentioned in the present IA, defendant no. t has paid a sum of Rs.21,50,000.00 on 09.10.2024 in the subiect account' Therefore, the prayer of the applicant bank for refund of court fees is hereby declined. All the pending IAs stand disposed of. IA no.127312026 is disposed off accordingly. File be consigned to record room. git\ i (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi P