Bank of Maharashtra withdrew an Objectionable Attachment Order after settling the loan debt. The Debts Recovery Tribunal examined a prayer for refund of court fees, ruling that the settlement was extra-judicial and not via Lok Adalat, thus no refund was permitted.
Prayer for refund of court fees declined; IA dismissed as withdrawn.
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 Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi
o[l64Ll2022 BANK OF MAHARASHTRA Vs SREYANT(AR MUKHAR'EE
26.06.2025 Item no. 21
Present: Shri Shaibsh Kumar, counsel for applicant bank. None for defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 2 is ex-parte since 09.12.2024
Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/ Hybrid Mode.
Para 6- The refund of court fes ispermissible only if, the matter is refend to Arbitration, &nciliation,judicial sexlemen{, including through Lok Adalat or mdiation for settlement and the ase is duidd in terms of such a settlement and not otherwise.
Para 7- In the cas at hanQ the settlement in terms of which the srond appeal was decidd by the High Court is not on reference to any of the above authorities/fora rather it was an amicable sttlement out of the court.
Para 8- Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitld to refund of the couft fes and the High Court has not committed any error or illegality in refusing such a prayer."
File be consigned to recordroom.
4)r - (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi
P
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jage Ram Vs Vd KaurReferred¶9
Jage Ram Vs Vd Kaur & Orc., SLP(c) No(s).723/2023
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bank of Maharashtra
Sreyant
Sushil Kumar Rastogi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
