The Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's request to withdraw the original application after it reported settling the matter out of court. Relying on precedent, the court held the bank is the dominus litis.
The IA for withdrawal of OA was allowed and the Original Application was disposed of.
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.
| 13/01/2023 | Ex. No. Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. Roznama in OA 43 of 2022 Canara Bank Vs M/s Zara Adventures Barreto |
Next date |
|---|---|---|
| Advocate Tamil Selvi Laxman appeared for the applicant. None for the defendant. IA No. 22/2023 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.450.00/- Lakhs (Rupees Four Crore Fifty Lakhs Only) towards full and final settlement of entire OA claim of Rs. 1,53,11,545.41/-. 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 |
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. 22/2023 is allowed and Original is as Application hereby disposed
| 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 27/01/2023 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 | Application for withdrawal |
| Ex-12 | Affidavit in support P.O. DRT-I |
Sgj/-1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal must object to the withdrawal of an application wherein the bank has settled the dispute out of court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satish Chand Gupta & Ors. Vs SBIRelied on¶2
Satish Chand Gupta & Ors. Vs SBI-W.P © 2588/2010
Roznama
Canara Bank
M/s Zara Adventures Barreto
Rekha G. Dhakar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Rekha G. Dhakar
Parties & counsel
