The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank to withdraw its Original Application for recovery after the parties reached a full and final settlement outside the court.
Permission to withdraw the Original Application (IA No. 1093/2024) on full and final settlement was granted.
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 TA 944 of 2023 Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs Shreekrupa Stone Crushing Co Bhau Posha Mhatre |
Next date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Advocate Shashikant Gaikwad appeared for the Applicant. IA No. 1093/2024 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. 44,47,400.11/-. 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dominus litis in their matter, therefore, IA No. 1093/2024 is allowed and Transfer is as Application hereby disposed withdrawn.
Sgj/-32
1 issue framed by the court
Whether DRT should allow an application to withdraw the original suit for recovery by the bank under Section 12 NI Act after an out-of-court settlement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satish Chand Gupta & Ors. Vs. SBI-W.P © 2588/2010Relied on¶1
Satish Chand Gupta & Ors. Vs. SBI-W.P © 2588/2010
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited
Shreekrupa Stone Crushing Co. Bhau Posha Mhatre
Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
