Bank of Baroda v. Sunjyot Gems

07/03/2024	Ex. No.	Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. Roznama in OA 83 of 2022 Bank of Baroda Vs Sunjyot Gems Gulecha	Next date
		Advocate Jayanthy K.B. i/b Rony & Co. appeared for the Applicant. Advocate Aparna D. Jagtap i/b Shashank appeared for the Defendant. IA No. 3038/2023 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.2,25,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Twenty Five Lakhs Only) towards full and final settlement of entire OA claim of Rs. 6,61,47,288/-.
		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

4.