The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of an application by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd after receiving a full and final settlement amount from the respondents. The court held the bank is the dominus litis.
Permission to withdraw the Original Application granted; Application disposed of as withdrawn.
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.
| 20/12/2022 | Ex. No. |
Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. Roznama in OA 461 of 2022 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd Vs Fortune Translogic Pvt Ltd and Ors |
Next date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Advocate Shashikant Gaikwad appeared for the applicant. |
|||
| None for the defendant. IA No. 1504/2022 |
|||
| 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.1,58,83,924.5/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Eight Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand Nine Hundred |
|||
| Twenty Four and Five Paisa Only) |
|||
| towards full and final settlement of entire OA claim of Rs. 29,38,996.19/-. |
|||
| 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 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
Sgj/-4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal should allow the withdrawal of the original application after an out-of-court settlement by the bank.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satish Chand Gupta & Ors. Vs. SBIReferred¶2
Satish Chand Gupta & Ors. Vs. SBI-W.P © 2588/2010
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd
Fortune Translogic Pvt Ltd
Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
