Allowed

Yes Bank v. New Choudhary Steel Scrap Traders

DRT17 Jan 2023OA/719/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application to withdraw an original application for the recovery of money owed. The court permitted the withdrawal because the parties had settled the matter out of court, noting that the bank, as dominus litis, has the autonomy to decide on settling claims.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the original application is granted as the claim has been settled out of court; account is closed.

Yes Bank versus New Choudhary Steel Scrap Traders — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

17/01/2023	Ex. No.	Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. *Roznama in OA 719 of 2022* *YES Bank Vs New Choudhary Steel Scrap* *Traders Choudhary*	Next date
		Advocate Uma Fadia appeared for the applicant. None for the defendant. IA No. 23/2023 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.21,00,000/-
		(Rupees Twenty One Lacs Only) towards full and final settlement of entire OA claim of Rs. 25,00,999.59/-.
		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. 23/2023 is allowed and Original is as Application hereby disposed

¶3

	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 31/01/2023 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-8	Praecipe
Ex-9 Ex-10	Application for withdrawal Supporting affidavit P.O. DRT-I

¶4

Sgj/-5

Yes Bank v. New Choudhary Steel Scrap Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank v. New Choudhary Steel Scrap Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/s. Zara Adventures

Idbi Bank versus Eupharma Laboratories Limited

Ms a R S Systems and Communications versus Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Yes Bank versus World Cargo Logistic

Union Bank of India versus Ramavatar D Singh

Bank of Baroda versus K R Thakur