Allowed

Yes Bank v. SP Construction

DRT24 Jul 2025OA/340/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal considered an application for withdrawal of an original application and refund of court fees. The applicant bank submitted that the matter was settled and the loan account closed. Relying on a Supreme Court ruling that court fee refunds are only permissible in cases referred to arbitration or judicial settlement, and noting this was an out-of-court settlement, the Tribu

What did the court decide?

Application for withdrawal of the Original Application was allowed. Prayer for refund of court fees was declined.

Yes Bank versus SP Construction — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRT (2025)

¶1

Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶2

oAl34Ol2O2s YES BANK Vs SP CONSTRUCTION ALI

¶3

24.07.2025

¶4

Item no.35

¶5

Present: Ms. Sonia Rawat, Counsel for applicant bank None for defendants

¶6

Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode.

¶7

IA no.205412025 has been filed by the appticant bank for withdrawal of the present OA.

¶8

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank submits that theapplicant bank humbly submits that the matter has been settled and the loan account of the defendants has been closed accordingly. Therefore, the applicant bank seeks permission of this Hontle Tribunal to withdraw the present Original Application, as settled.Hence, the applicant bank wishes to withdraw the present OA.

¶9

The Ld. Counsel of the applicant has also rcquested for refund of the couft 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).723/2023datd 28.01.202i tiild as Jage Ram Vs Vd Kaur &Orc. The Hontle Supreme Court has considered the matter and has held that:

¶10

Para 6- The refund of court frc is prmisible only il the matter is referrd to Arbitration, Concitt?tio4 judbial rettlemenl including through Lok Adatat or mdrbbon for sttlement and the ase is d*idd in terms of such a sttlement and not otherwis.

¶11

Para 7- In the case at hand, the retflement in terms of which the seond appeal was d*idd by the High Court is not on reference to any of the above authoritis/fon rather it was an amicable sefilement outof the court

¶12

Para 8- Accordngly, we are of the opinion that the pehttoner is not entitld to refund of the @urt fes and ffie High Court has not committd any error or illqality in refusing such a pnyer.,,

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

prayer of the applicant for refund of court fees is hereby declined.

¶16

In view of the above submission made by the^Ld. Counsel for applicant bank, lA no.205412025 is allowed. ON34012025^is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶17

File be consigned to record room.

¶18

s/\ (susHrl Kr.IvlAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

Yes Bank v. SP Construction

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank v. SP Construction

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