The bank applicant sought to withdraw its original application claiming full settlement. Relying on Supreme Court precedent that banks are dominus litis, the Tribunal allowed withdrawal and disposed of the original application.
Permission granted to withdraw the Original Application and the OA is 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.
| 04/06/2024 | Ex. No. |
Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. Roznama in OA 516 of 2022 Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs Agrawal Krishna Amitkumar |
Next date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Advocate Shashikant Gaikwad appeared for the Applicant. IA No. 993/2024 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 towards full and final settlement of entire OA claim of Rs. 21,96,139.03/-. 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. 993/2024 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 18/06/2024 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
Sgj/-28
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal can object to a settlement arrived at between the bank and the borrower.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satish Chand Gupta & Ors. Vs. SBIExplained¶2
W.P.(C) 2588/2010
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited
Agrawal Krishna Amitkumar
Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
