Dismissed

State Bank of India v. Gurmeet Singh & Ors.

DRT18 Jun 2025OA/3/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi case, the applicant bank sought withdrawal of an objection application (OA) and refund of court fees as the debt was settled. The court declined the refund prayer, citing that the settlement was not via an authoritative mechanism like Lok Adalat, and dismissed the OA as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for refund of court fees declined; IA no.1247/2025 dismissed as withdrawn.

State Bank of India versus Gurmeet Singh & Ors. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Deb,ts Recoyery Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶2

olll3l2lffi2s STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs GURMEET SINGH & oRs.

¶3

18.06.2025

¶4

Item no. 20

¶5

Present: ShriAMus Samad, counselfor applicant bank. None for defendanb.

¶6

Mafter is taken through Video Conferencing/ Hybrid Mode.

¶7

IA no.1247l2025 has been filed by the appticant bank for withdrawal of the present OA.

¶8

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank submits that the loan account of the defendants has been setUed and no dues to be recovered against the defendants in the present matter. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for applicant bank wishes to withdraw the present OA and prayed for refund of the court fee.

¶9

Heard the Ld. Counsel for applicant bank and perused the records.

¶10

The Ld. C-ounsel of the applicant bank has requested for refund of the court fees. It is submitted that the loan account of the defendants has been setfled and therefore, the court fees may be refunded as per provisions contained in the rules. In this regard the HonUe Supreme Court has passed the order in SLp(c) No(s).723/2023 datd 28.01.2025 titld as -tage Ram Vs Vd Kaur & Orc. The Honble Supreme Couft has considered the matter and has held that:

¶11

Pan 6- The refund of @urt fe6 s prmissible only if the matter is referrd to Abitntio4 Conciliatio4 judicial *ttlement, including th4tugh Lok Adatat or qt-1

¶12

mediahon for setflement and the as is dsidd in terms of such a settlement and not otherwie.

¶13

Para 7- In the case at hand, the ettlement in terms of which the wond appal was d*idd by the High Court is not on referene to any of the above authoritres/fora rather it was an amicable settlement out of the court

¶14

Para 8- Accordmgly, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entiild to refund of the court fes and the High Court has not ammit@ any error or illqality n refusing such a prayer."

¶15

In view of the above, OAlO3l2O25 is dismissed as withdrawn. The applicant bank has also sought refund of court fee. The matter has not been disposed of on the basis of settlement in Lok Adalat. There appears no occasion to return the court fee. The matter has been withdrawn due to the loan account of the defendants has been settled. Therefore, the prayer of the applicant bank for refund of court fees is hereby declined. All the pending IAs stand disposed of. IA no.L247l2O25 is disposed off accordingly.

¶16

File be consigned to record room.

¶17

V,/ (susHrl KUPTAR RASTOGT) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, DeIhi

¶18

¶19

State Bank of India v. Gurmeet Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Gurmeet Singh & Ors.

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