Allowed

State Bank of India v. Banit Kumar and Anr.

DRT18 Dec 2025OA/252/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi allowed the applicant bank's application to withdraw an operating account order due to settlement, dismissing the original order as withdrawn. The refund of court fees was declined as the settlement occurred out of court, citing Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

IA no.1460/2025 allowed; OA 252/2023 dismissed as withdrawn; original documents returned.

State Bank of India versus Banit Kumar and Anr. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶2

oA/2s2l2023

¶3

STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs BANIT KUMAR AND ANR

¶4

18.12.2025

¶5

Item no. 73

¶6

Present: Ms. Deeksha, prory counselfor applicant bank. None for defendants.

¶7

Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/ hybrid Mode.

¶8

IA no.1460l2025 has been flled by the applicant bank for withdrawal of the present OA.

¶9

The proxy counsel for the applicant bank submits that the matter has been settled between the parties. She further submits that she wish to withdraw the present TA. Proxy counsel for applicant bank also prayed for return of original documents.

¶10

The proxy counsel of the applicant bank has also requested for refund of the court fees. It is submitted that the matter has 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the matter and has held that:

¶11

Para 6- The refund of court fees is permissible only if, the matter is referred to Arbitration, Conciliation, judicial settlement, including through Lok Adalat or mediation for settlement and the case is decided in terms of such a settlement and not otherwise.

¶12

Para 7- In the case at hanQ the settlement in terms of which the second appeal was duided by the High Court is not on reference to any of the above authorities/fora rather it was an amicable settlement out of the court. <A

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

In view of the above, it is clear that if the matter has been settled out of the court without any reference from the court or Tribunal, the court fees cannot be refunded. Therefore, the prayer of the applicant bank for refund of couft fees is hereby declined.

¶16

In view of amicable settlement, IA no.146o 12025 is allowed. OA 25212023 is dismissed as withdrawn. Registry is directed to return the original documents after keeping the ceftified copies on records. All the pending IAs stand disposed of.

¶17

File be consigned to record room.

¶18

I d (susHrL KTIMAR RASTOGT) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-II, Delhi

State Bank of India v. Banit Kumar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Banit Kumar and 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