Allowed

State Bank of India v. Prashant

DRT27 Mar 2023OA/248/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the original application filed by State Bank of India. The application was withdrawn after the bank settled the matter out of court with the respondents and received the full settlement amount. The court relied on a High Court precedent establishing the bank's status as dominus litis.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the original application is granted.

State Bank of India versus Prashant — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

27/03/2023	Ex. No. Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. *Roznama in OA 248 of 2022* *State Bank of India Vs Prashant Ruia*	Next date
	Advocate Malanika Sachin i/b India Law LLP appeared for the Applicant. None for the Defendant. IA No. 408/2023
	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 Rs87,96,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Seven Crores Ninety Six Lakhs Only) towards full and final settlement of entire OA claim of Rs.148,72,00,000/-. 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 248 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,

¶5

¶6

OA 248 of 2022

¶7

	IA No. 408/2023 is allowed and Original
	Application is hereby disposed as
	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 10/04/2023 after
Ex. 09	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. Praecipe.
Ex. 10	Application for withdrawal.
Ex. 11	Supporting affidavit. P.O. DRT-I

¶8

Mnt/-5

¶9

State Bank of India v. Prashant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Prashant

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

Union Bank of India versus Essar Power Gujarat Limited

Canara Bank versus Reliance Home Finance Limited

Devilal Hiramani Chapagain versus Abhyudaya Cooperative Bank Limited

Ms Ronex Computers and Anr. versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Bank of Baroda (Dena Bank) versus Lyka Bdr International Ltd.

Mrs Anney P Kadam versus Edelweiss Assets Reonstruction Company Ltd.