Allowed

Standard Chartered Bank v. Mahendra Rosin and Turpentine Pvt. Ltd.

DRT24 Aug 2023OA/104/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application to withdraw the Original Application. The Bank, having settled the claim out of court and received the settlement amount, was permitted to withdraw the suit as it is the dominus litis. The case was disposed of, documents returned, and court fee refund directed.

What did the court decide?

Original Application withdrawn and disposed; Registry directed to return documents to applicant bank; Court fee refund procedure directed.

Standard Chartered Bank versus Mahendra Rosin and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

24/08/2023	Ex. No. Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. *Roznama in OA 104 of 2022* *Standard Chartered Bank Vs Mahendra Rosin* *and Turpentine Pvt Ltd*	Next date
	Advocate Hema Desai i/b Singhi & Co. appeared for the Applicant. IA No. 2708/2023
	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.8,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crores Only) towards full and final settlement of entire OA claim of Rs. 18,66,19,182.08/-. 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. 2708/2023 is allowed and Original is as Application hereby disposed

¶3

¶4

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 07/09/2023 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-10 Withdrawal application & 11 P.O. DRT-I

¶5

Sgj/-40

Standard Chartered Bank v. Mahendra Rosin and Turpentine Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Standard Chartered Bank v. Mahendra Rosin and Turpentine Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Standard Chartered Bank versus S K S Textiles Limited

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Hira

Idbi Bank versus Sudhir

Ravishankar Pasupuleti versus Central Bank of India

Bank of India versus Stacy

Bank of India versus Cyntia Rosety Feliciana