Allowed

Yes Bank v. World Cargo Logistic

DRT17 Jan 2023OA/738/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant bank sought permission to withdraw the original application after settling the claim out of court and receiving full payment. Relying on Satish Chand Gupta, the court held that the bank as dominus litis can settle its dues, and granted the withdrawal request.

What did the court decide?

IA No. 24/2023 prayed for permission to withdraw the Original Application was allowed; OA disposed of; complete documents returned to applicant bank.

Yes Bank versus World Cargo Logistic — DRT (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

17/01/2023	Ex. No. Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. *Roznama in OA 738 of 2022* *YES Bank Vs World Cargo Logistic Purohit*	Next date
	Advocate Ms. Uma Fadia appeared for the applicant. None for the defendant. IA No. 24/2023 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.17,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lacs Only) towards full and final settlement of entire OA claim of Rs. 25,64,132.92/-.
	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. 24/2023 is allowed and Original is as Application hereby disposed

¶3

	5.	withdrawn. 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.
	6. File b	However, the order sheets as well as the plaint and necessary documents shall be kept with this Tribunal. The applicant is directed to follow the procedure of refund of court fees as per the DRT (Refund of Court fee) Rules 2013. e closed and consigned to record room.
Ex-8 Ex-9 Ex-10	Praec Appl Supp	ipe ication for withdrawal orting affidavit P.O. DRT-I

¶4

Sgj/-4

Yes Bank v. World Cargo Logistic

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank v. World Cargo Logistic

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 New Choudhary Steel Scrap Traders

Union Bank of India versus Ramavatar D Singh

Bank of Baroda versus K R Thakur