Partly allowed

State Bank of India v. Shri Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi

DRT18 Sept 2025OA/531/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal entertained an application for withdrawal of an Original Application (OA) after the underlying account was settled out of court. The court followed Supreme Court jurisprudence to deny the refund of court fees as the settlement was amicable and not via judicial reference.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for refund of court fees declined; Application 2647/2025 allowed; Application 531/2022 dismissed as withdrawn.

State Bank of India versus Shri Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi — DRT (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶2

oA,ls3u2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs SHRI VTVEK KUMAR CHATURVEDI.

¶3

18.09.202s

¶4

Item no. 73

¶5

Present: Mr. Jaya Tomar, counsel for applicant bank. None for defendants.

¶6

Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/ hybrid Mode.

¶7

IA no.264712025 has been filed by the applicant bank for withdrawal of the present OA.

¶8

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank submits that the account has been seftled and no due certificate has been issued by the applicant bank. She further submits that she wishes to withdraw the present OA.

¶9

The Ld. Counsel of the applicant bank has also requested for refund of the court fees. It is submifted that the matter has been seftled 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 titld as Jage Ram Vs Ved Kaur & Orc. The Hontle Supreme Court has considered the matter and has held that:

¶10

Para 6- The refund of court fes is permissible only if, the matter is referd to Arbitration, Conciliation, judicial rettlemenl including through Lok Adalat or medbtion for settlement and the ase is decided in terms of such a settlement and not otherwie.

¶11

Para 7- In the case at hand, the settlement in terms of which the second appeal was dsidd by the High Court is not on reference to any of the above authorities/fora rather it was an amicable seXlement out of the court. e"\

¶12

Para 8- Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is notentitled to refund of the court fes and the High Court has not committed any eror or illqality in refusing such a prayer.

¶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 prayer of the applicant bank for refund of court fees is hereby declined. lAno.2il7l2O25 is allowed. OA 531/2022 is dismissed as withdrawn. Allthe pending IAs stand disposed of.

¶14

File be consigned to record room.

¶15

-.^ glr (susHrl KIJ{AR RASTOGT) PRESIDING OFFICE& DRT-II, Delhi

State Bank of India v. Shri Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Shri Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases