Allowed

Canara Bank v. Suhas Chandrakant Malik

DRT4 Apr 2024TA/369/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application for withdrawal of an Original Application filed by Canara Bank. The court held that the bank, as dominus litis, had the right to settle the claim out of court and withdraw proceedings once the settlement amount was received.

What did the court decide?

Application No. 653/2024 allowed; Original Application disposed of and withdrawn; complete documents to be returned to the bank.

Canara Bank versus Suhas Chandrakant Malik — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

04/04/2024	Ex. No.	Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. *Roznama in TA 369 of 2023* *Canara Bank Vs Suhas Chandrakant* *Malik*	Next date
		Advocate Kadambari Patil i/b Advocate Vaishali Bhilare appeared for the Applicant. IA No. 653/2024 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 of Rs.3,75,000/-
		(Rupees Three Lacs Seventy Five Thousand Only) towards full and final settlement of entire OA claim of Rs. 18,60,295.94/-.
		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

¶2

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. 653/2024 is allowed and Transfer

¶3

¶4

is as

¶5

Application hereby disposed withdrawn.

¶6

1. 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 18/04/2024 after obtaining necessary acknowledgment. However, the order sheets as well as the plaint and necessary documents shall be kept with this Tribunal.

¶7

1. The applicant is directed to follow the procedure of refund of court fees as per the DRT (Refund of Court fee) Rules 2013.

¶8

File be closed and consigned to record room. P.O.

¶9

DRT-I

¶10

Sgj/-42

Canara Bank v. Suhas Chandrakant Malik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Suhas Chandrakant Malik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Shital Vinay Patil Anr. versus Phonix Arc Private Limited & Ors.

Idbi Bank versus Aman Kamlesh Solanki

Idbi Bank versus Jasmine

State Bank of India versus Mr Vijaykumar Hiralal

Canara Bank versus Neeta Vaman Shettigar

Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) versus M/S M. F. Traders