Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Niyati

DRT21 Apr 2023OA/284/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order in the Debt Recovery Tribunal permits the applicant bank to withdraw its original application following a full and final out-of-court settlement where the bank received the settlement amount. The tribunal held that the bank, as dominus litis, has the absolute right to settle its dues with the borrower.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw the Original Application; disposed as withdrawn; court fees refund directed.

Icici Bank Limited versus Niyati — DRT (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

21/04/2023	Ex. No.	Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. Roznama in OA 284 of 2022 *ICICI Bank Limited Vs Niyati Shah*	Next date
		Advocate Ms. Amita Dutta i/b Atul Patkar appeared for the applicant. None appeared for the defendant. IA No. 709/2023 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.8,58,924/- (Rupees Eight Lacs Fifty Eight Thousand
		Nine Hundred Twenty Four Only)
		towards full and final settlement of entire OA claim of Rs. 19,91,644.35/-. 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

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….”.

¶3

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

	No. 709/2023 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 06/05/2023 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-11	Praecipe
EX-12	Application for Withdrawal
EX-13	Support Affidavit
	P.O. DRT-I

¶5

SP/-4

Icici Bank Limited v. Niyati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Niyati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yes Bank versus Jayant

Union Bank of India versus Cosme Romaldo Selveira

M/s. Ab versus Union Bank of India

Icici Bank Limited versus Dilip

Icici Bank Limited versus Amarjeet Jitendra Shukla

Icici Bank Limited versus Gaurav Mehta