Dismissed

State Bank of India v. Shri Nazish Ghazali

DRT18 Jun 2025OA/48/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi dismissed an Original Application withdrawn by the applicant bank due to full recovery of dues. The bank sought refund of court fees citing an SC precedent, but the Tribunal rejected the prayer as the settlement was an amicable one outside arbitration or Lok Adalat provisions.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for refund of court fees declined. Original Application dismissed as withdrawn. IA no.1314l2025 disposed off.

State Bank of India versus Shri Nazish Ghazali — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Debts Recovery TribunaFll, Delhi

¶2

oAl48.l2o2s STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs SHRI ]{AZISH GHAZALI

¶3

18.05.2025

¶4

Item no. 22

¶5

Present: Shri Sahil Patel, counsel for applicant bank. None for defendants.

¶6

Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/ Hybrid Mode.

¶7

IA no.1314l2025 has been filed by the applicant bank for withdrawal of the present OA.

¶8

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank submits that applicant bank has received the entire outstanding dues from the defendants in respect of both the loan accounts and the both loan accounts of the defendants has been closed. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for applicant bank wishes to withdraw the present OA and prayed for refund of the couft fee.

¶9

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

¶10

The Ld. Counsel of the applicant bank has requested for refund of the court fees. It is submitted that the matter has been settled between the^parties and applicant bank has received the entire outstanding dues from the defendants in respect of both the loan accounts and therefore, the court fees may be refunded as per provisions contained in the rules. In this regard the Hontle Supreme Court has passed the order in SLP(c) No(s).723/2023 datd 28.01.2025 tr'tld as Jage Ram Vs Vd Kaur & Orc. The Honble Supreme Court has consider_qd the matter and has held that: ei"

¶11

Para 6- The refund of court fes is permissible only if the matter is referrd b Arbitntion, Conciliab'o4 judbtal *tflement, including through Lok Adalat or mdiation for rettlement and the are is drcidd in terms of such a settlement and not otherwis.

¶12

Pan 7- In the ca* at hand, the ettlement in terms of which the mnd appeal was drcidd by the High Court is not on reference to any of the aboue authoritiu/fora railter it was an amicable stttement outof the ourt.

¶13

Para 8- Accordingly, we are of the opintbn that the ptitioner is not enhild to refund of the court fee and the High Court has not committd any error or illqality in refusing such a prayer."

¶14

In view of the above, OAl48l2O25 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 matter has been settled between the parties and applicant bank has received the entire outstanding dues from the defendants in respect of both the loan ac@unts. Therefore, the prayer of the app:llcant bank for refund of court fees is hereby declined. All the pending IAs stand disposed of. IA no.1314l2025 is disposed off accordingly.

¶15

File be consigned to record room.

¶16

" sd,, (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶17

State Bank of India v. Shri Nazish Ghazali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Shri Nazish Ghazali

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