Disposed

State Bank of India v. R Purohit Space Developers Pvt. Ltd.

DRT7 Feb 2024TA/313/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the Applicant Bank's application to withdraw its original application as it had settled the dispute out of court and received the full settlement amount. Relying on precedent, the court held the bank as dominus litis, permitted withdrawal, and directed refund of court fees.

What did the court decide?

Application to withdraw the original application allowed. Original application disposed of and withdrawn. Documents returned to bank by Registry.

State Bank of India versus R Purohit Space Developers Pvt. Ltd. — Specific Performance | DRT (2024)

¶1

07/02/2024	Ex. No.	Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. *Roznama in TA 313 of 2023* *State Bank of India Vs R Purohit Space* *Developers Pvt Ltd*	Next date
		Advocate N.T. More i/b MMK Law Associates appeared for the Applicant. IA No. 68/2024
		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. 2,30,81,262.39/-. 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

¶2

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. 68/2024 is allowed and Transfer is as Application hereby disposed withdrawn. 5. The Registry of this Tribunal is hereby

¶3

directed to return the complete
documents of the OA to the authorized
officer of the applicant bank before the
Ld. Registrar on 22/02/2024 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/-23

State Bank of India v. R Purohit Space Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. R Purohit Space Developers Pvt. Ltd.

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

Origami Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. versus Yes Bank

Basic Style Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Maharashtra

Idbi Bank versus Mr Shivaji Madhav Jadhav

Punjab National Bank versus Ajay Mehra

Canara Bank versus Mr Deelip U Gawde

Bank of Baroda versus Kisore