Application to withdraw a debtor's recovery application allowed after bank settled matter out of court and received full payment.
Application to withdraw original application allowed; case disposed of withdrawn.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.
OA 134 of 2022
| 05/07/2023 | Ex. No. Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. Roznama in OA 134 of 2022 Union Bank of India Vs Navbharat Insulation & Engineering Co. |
Next date |
|---|---|---|
| Advocate Anitkumar Sanghvi i/b Interjuris appeared for the Applicant. None for the Defendant. IA No. 2033/2023 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. 3,70,90,765/- (Rupees |
||
| Three Crores Seventy Lakhs Ninety Thousand Seven Sixty Five Only) towards full and final settlement of entire OA claim of Rs. 3,70,90,765/-. 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 |
1
OA 134 of 2022
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. 2033/2023 is allowed and Original is as Application hereby disposed withdrawn.
2
OA 134 of 2022
Tjs/-33
3
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satish Chand Gupta & Ors. Vs SBI-W.P © 2588/2010Referred¶3
Satish Chand Gupta & Ors. Vs SBI-W.P © 2588/2010
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Union Bank of India
Navbharat Insulation & Engineering Co. (Defendant)
Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
