Partly allowed

State Bank of India v. Shri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava & Anr.

DRT17 Sept 2025OA/165/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi allowed an interim application for withdrawal of an office application by the applicant bank, which had been filed for withdrawal of an originating application due to closed loan accounts. The court declined the prayer for refund of court fees, relying on a Supreme Court precedent regarding refund eligibility.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for withdrawal of OA is allowed; the prayer for refund of court fees is declined; all pending IAs are disposed of.

State Bank of India versus Shri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava & Anr. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi o[lt6sl2o2s STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SRIVASTAVA & ANR.

¶2

t7.09.2025

¶3

Item no. 18

¶4

Present: Ms. Ashita Pawar, prory counsel for applicant bank.

¶5

Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/ hybrid Mode.

¶6

IA no.185712025 has been filed by the applicant bank for withdrawal of the^present OA.

¶7

The^proxy counsel for the applicant bank submits that^{as the} loan accounts have been closed. She further submits that^{she wish} to withdraw the^present OA.

¶8

The Ld. Counsel of the applicant bank^has also^requestedfor refund of the court fees. It is submitted that the^{matterhas been} settled and therefore, the court fees may be^{refunded as per} provisions contained in the rules. In this regard the Honble Supreme Court has^passed the order^{in SLP(c)No(s).723/2023} dated 28.01.2025 titled as Jage^{Ram Vs Ved Kaur & Ors. fhe} Hontle Supreme Court has considered the matter^{and has held} that:

¶9

Para 6- The refund of court fes^{is permissible only if} the matter is referrd to Arbitration,^{Conciliation,} judicial settlement, including through Lok Adalat or mediation for sefulement and the cas^{is decided in} terms of such a settlement and^{not otherwise.}

¶10

Para 7- In the ase at hand, the settlement^{in terms} of which the second appeal was duidd by the^High Court is not on reference to any of^{the above} authorities/fora rather it^was an amicallg^settlement out of the court. ,A^</sup>

¶11

Para 8- Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to refund of the couft fees and the High Couft has not committed any error or illqality in refusing such a prayer."

¶12

In view of the above, it is clear that if the matter has been settled out of the court without any reference from the couft or Tribunal, the court fees cannot be refunded. Therefore, the^prayer of the applicant bank for refund of coutt fees is hereby declined. IA no.185712025 is allowed. OA 165/2025 is dismissed as withdrawn. Allthe^pending IAs stand disposed of.

¶13

Fib be consigned to record room.

¶14

€J-\ (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-II, Delhi

State Bank of India v. Shri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Shri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava & Anr.

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