Allowed

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) v. Dynamic Stone Crusher

DRT8 Dec 2022OA/467/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed withdrawal of an Original Application filed by Union Bank of India against Dynamic Stone Crusher Shaikh upon bank seeking permission to close disputed claim after out-of-court settlement and receipt of full settlement amount.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw Original Application; file closed; court fees refund procedure directed; OA documents returned to bank officers before specified date.

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus Dynamic Stone… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

08/12/2022	Ex. No. Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. *Roznama in OA 467 of 2022* *Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) Vs* *Dynamic Stone Crusher Shaikh*	Next date
	Advocate Ms. Divya Jaiswar i/b N. I. Bakali appeared for the applicant. None for the defendant. IA No. 1082/2022 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.51,50,000/- (Rupees Fifty One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) towards full and final settlement of entire OA claim of Rs. 59,40,863/-.
	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

¶2

OA 467 of 2022

¶3

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, IA

¶4

¶5

OA 467 of 2022

¶6

No. 1082/2022 is allowed and Original
is as
Application hereby disposed
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 28/12/2022 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.
Ex. 7 Praecipe.
Ex. 8 Application for withdrawal.
Ex. 9 Supporting affidavit.
Sd/-
P.O.
DRT-I

¶7

Pnd/-1

¶8

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) v. Dynamic Stone Crusher

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) v. Dynamic Stone Crusher

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Vipul Shipyard Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda

Pravin Nagda versus housing development finance corporation limited

Best and Crompton Engineering Products Limited versus Central Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus Ritu

Bank of Baroda versus Klt Automobiles

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr Kanayo R Thakur