Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/s Shree Prabhat Medical & General Stores

DRT8 Aug 2023OA/754/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the applicant bank to withdraw its application after settling the claim with the borrower for Rs. 21,00,000/- and receiving the full settlement amount, citing the bank's dominus litis principle.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw the Original Application. Registry directed to return documents to the authorized officer of the applicant bank.

State Bank of India versus M/s Shree Prabhat Medical & General… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

08/08/2023	Ex. No.	Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. *Roznama in OA 754 of 2022* *State Bank of India Vs M/s Shree Prabhat* *Medical & General Stores*	Next date
		Advocate Mr. R.J. Singh appeared for the Applicant. IA No. 1274/2023
		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. 24,85,443.07/-. 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. 1274/2023 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 22/08/2023 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. P.O. DRT-I

¶5

Sgj/-19

State Bank of India v. M/s Shree Prabhat Medical & General Stores

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/s Shree Prabhat Medical & General Stores

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

Zeal Logistic India Pvt. Ltd. versus Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited

Vasa Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda

Nishta Mall Management Company Private Ltd. versus Ifcl Limited

Gadkari Builders and Associates versus State Bank of India

Bank of Baroda (Dena Bank) versus Suman Narasimha Kotwal

Indian Bank versus Urvil