Dismissed

Bank of Baroda (Dena Bank) v. Suman Narasimha Kotwal

DRT8 Aug 2023MA/56/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Divisional Retrial Tribunal allowed the bank applicant's application to withdraw the original application. The court held that as the parties settled out of court and the bank is the dominus litis, the Tribunal has no objection to the withdrawal of the claim.

What did the court decide?

The Miscellaneous Application No. 2402/2023 was allowed and disposed of by withdrawing the Original Application. The registry was directed to return documents to the bank.

Bank of Baroda (Dena Bank) versus Suman Narasimha… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

08/08/2023	Ex. No. Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. *Roznama in MA 56 of 2022* *Bank of Baroda (Dena Bank) Vs Suman* *Narasimha Kotwal*	Next date
	Advocate Mr. Sanjay Upadhay i/b K.D. Shukla & Co. appeared for the Applicant. IA No. 2402/2023 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.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs Only) towards full and final settlement of entire OA claim of Rs. 28,53,319/-. 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

¶2

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 No. 2402/2023 is allowed and Miscellaneous Application is hereby

¶3

¶4

disposed as withdrawn.

¶5

1. 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 22/08/2023 after obtaining necessary acknowledgment. However, the order sheets as well as the plaint and necessary documents shall be kept with this Tribunal.

¶6

1. The applicant is directed to follow the procedure of refund of court fees as per the DRT (Refund of Court fee) Rules 2013.

¶7

File be closed and consigned to record room. P.O.

¶8

DRT-I

¶9

Sgj/-25

Bank of Baroda (Dena Bank) v. Suman Narasimha Kotwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda (Dena Bank) v. Suman Narasimha Kotwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zeal Logistic India Pvt. Ltd. versus Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited

Vasa Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda

Nishta Mall Management Company Private Ltd. versus Ifcl Limited

State Bank of India versus M/s Shree Prabhat Medical & General Stores

Gadkari Builders and Associates versus State Bank of India

Indian Bank versus Urvil