Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. M/s. Rohinton Mehta Builders and Developers

DRT12 Jun 2023OA/35/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant Bank's motion to withdraw the Original Application after the parties settled the matter out of court and the Bank received the full settlement amount. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the court held the Bank as dominus litis has the right to settle and withdraw the claim.

What did the court decide?

IA No. 2130/2023 allowed; Original Application withdrawn and disposed of; Registry directed to return documents.

Punjab National Bank versus M/s. Rohinton Mehta Builders and… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

12/06/2023	Ex. No.	Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. *Roznama in OA 35 of 2023* *Punjab National Bank Vs M/s Rohinton* *Mehta Builders and Developers*	Next date
		Advocate Mrs. A.W. Barve appeared for the Applicant. IA No. 2130/2023 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.13,00,00,000.00/- (Rupees Thirteen Crores Only) towards full and final settlement of entire OA claim of Rs. 18,30,66,494.65/-. 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. 2130/2023 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 27/06/2023 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	Praecipe
Ex-11	Vakalatnama
Ex-12	Withdrawal application
Ex-13	Supporting affidavit P.O. DRT-I

¶5

Sgj/-4

Punjab National Bank v. M/s. Rohinton Mehta Builders and Developers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. M/s. Rohinton Mehta Builders and Developers

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

Mr Sandeep Thadeshwar versus Iifl Home Finance Ltd.

Manoj Kumar Sharma versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

Amool Shivaji Rokade versus The Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus Anil Daulat Mahale

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited versus Biltube Industries Limited

Union Bank of India versus Rohit