The DRT-II, Delhi dismissed the applicant bank's original application as withdrawn upon receipt of an application for withdrawal. The court declined the prayer for refund of court fees, holding that an out-of-court settlement does not warrant a refund under Supreme Court guidelines.
Withdrawal of the OA allowed; prayer for refund of court fees declined.
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.
Debts Recovely Tribunal-Il, Delhi
oA-l23l2O2s
STATE BANK OF INDIAVS SHRIMADAN PRASAD & ANR.
13.06.2025
Item no. 17
Present: Mr. Sahil Patel, counsel for applicantbank. None for defendants.
Matter is taken throughVideoConferencing/ hybrid Mode.
Para 6- The refund of aurtfes is permissible only if, the matter is referred toArbitration, Conciliation, judicial settlement, inctuding through Lok Adalator mediation for settlementand the case is decided in terms of such a settlementand not otherwis.
Para 7- In the caseat han4 the settlement in terms of which the second appealwas decidedby the High Court is not onreference to any of the above authorities/fora ratherit yaf an amicableftttlement out of the coutt. C,).
Para B- Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to refund of the court fes and the High Court has not committed any eror or illqality in refusing such a prayer."
File be consigned to record room.
s(SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-II, Delhi
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jage Ram Vs Ved Kaur & OrsReferred¶11
SLP(c)No(s).723/2023 dated 28.01.2025 titled as Jage Ram Vs Ved Kaur & Ors
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SHRI MADAN PRASAD & ANR.
SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
