The Tribunal allowed the applicant bank to withdraw its original application for recovery of dues after a settlement of Rs. 70.35 Lakh was reached. The court held that the bank is dominus litis and can decide against whom to litigate.
Permission granted to withdraw the Original Application (OA No. 420/2023); OA disposed of as withdrawn.
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.
29/03/2023 Ex. Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, Next date
No. DRT-1, Mumbai.
Roznama in TA 10 of 2023
Bank of Baroda (Dena Bank) Vs Lyka BDR
International Ltd.
Advocate Mr. R. N., Mr. Udayakumar S. N.
appeared for the Applicant.
Advocate Ms. Sonali Jain appeared for the
Defendant.
IA No. 420/2023
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.70.35 Lakh
towards full and final settlement of
entire OA claim of Rs. 1.79 crores.
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
SA 89 of 2021
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,
2
SA 89 of 2021
IA No. 420/2023 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 12/04/2023 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
Mnt/-11
3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal should refuse permission for withdrawal of the application merely because it involves a settlement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satish Chand Gupta & Ors. Vs. SBIReferred¶3
Satish Chand Gupta & Ors. Vs. SBI-W.P © 2588/2010
Bank of Baroda (Dena Bank)
Lyka BDR International Ltd.
Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
