The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank to withdraw an original application as the matter was settled out of court, citing the bank's sovereign authority to settle dues.
Permission withdrawn of the Original Application as settled out of court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
| 26/07/2022 | Ex. No. Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. Roznama in OA 318 of 2022 Canara Bank Vs M/s Navoteck Industries Bhandari |
Next date |
|---|---|---|
| Advocate Ms. Selvi Laxman appeared for the applicant. None for the defendant. IA No. 834/2022 1. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Applicant Bank seeking permission to withdraw the Original Application as they have settled the matter out of court with the defendants and received an amount of Rs.1,18,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Eighteen Lakh Only) towards full and final settlement of entire OA claim of Rs. 1,47,22,977.57/-. |
||
| 2. Considered the contentions of Ld. Counsel for the applicant and gone through the record as well as case laws on the subject. 3. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Satish Chand Gupta & Ors. Vs. SBI-W.P © 2588/2010 held that “…..DRT |
OA 318 of 2022
can have no objection to the same as the bank which is claimant has agreed to the same. The bank is dominus litis and it is for the bank to decide as to against which party it desires the litigation to continue. It is purely a contractual matter and the bank in its wisdom decided to settle the claim against the petitioners…..”. It was further laid down that the Tribunal appears to think that it is some kind of Ombudsman/ Auditor of the bank to scrutinize the settlement arrived between the parties. The Tribunal is no one to decide as to at what value the bank should settle its dues with the borrower especially when the bank has Managers who have acted in pursuance to authorization in their favour and after due consideration of the proposal of the petitioners….”. 4. In the light of above, since the account impugned has already been closed in terms of settlement between the parties and Bank has already received the entire settlement amount, further the bank has dominus litis in their matter, therefore,
2
OA 318 of 2022
| IA No. 834/2022 is allowed and Original |
|---|
| Application is hereby disposed as withdrawn. |
| 5. The Registry of this Tribunal is hereby |
| directed to return the complete |
| documents of the OA to the authorized |
| officer of the applicant bank before the |
| Ld. Registrar on 12/08/2022 after |
| obtaining necessary acknowledgment. However, the order sheets as well as the plaint and necessary documents shall be kept with this Tribunal. |
| 6. The applicant is directed to follow the procedure of refund of court fees as per |
| the DRT (Refund of Court fee) Rules 2013. File be closed and consigned to record room. Sd/- P.O. DRT-I |
Pnd/-1
3
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satish Chand Gupta & Ors. Vs SBI-W.P © 2588/2010Distinguished¶3
Canara Bank
M/s Navoteck Industries Bhandari
Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
