Partly allowed

Idfc Bank Limited v. Ms Go Plast Private Limited

DRT24 Dec 2025OA/696/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant bank's Original Application as withdrawn upon settlement of loan accounts. The court declined the prayer for refund of court fees, citing Jage Ram vs Ved Kaur & Ors., as settlements outside Lok Adalat or mediation do not attract refund provisions.

What did the court decide?

Original Application dismissed as withdrawn; prayer for refund of court fees declined.

Idfc Bank Limited versus Ms Go Plast Private Limited — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Debts Recovery Tribuna!-Il, Delhi

¶2

oA,l696120.22

¶3

IDFC BANK LIMITED Vs MS GO PI-AST PRIVATE UMITED

¶4

24.12.2025

¶5

Item no. 72

¶6

Present: Ms. Sejal Jain, counsel for applicant bank. Shri Chitrantan Krishna, counsel for defendants.

¶7

Matter is taken through Video C.onferencing/ Hybrid Mode. 2. IA no.362812025 has been filed by the applicant bank for withdrawal of the^present OA and^IA no.362912025 has been filed by the applicant bank^for refund of the court fee.

¶8

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank submits^that during the^pendency of the^present application,^{the Loan} account nos. 28774361 and 33780905 were^settled between the applicant bank and the defendanVborrowers as the borrowers have^paid the entire^{settlement amount} to the applicant bank^pursuant to which the^{Loan Account} nos.28774361 and 33780905 have been closed^and a^No Dues Certificate^(NDC) has been issued in favour^{of the} defendants/borrowers by the applicant bank.^{Therefore, it} is prayed to withdraw the^present OA and^{prayed for} refund of the court fee.

¶9

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

¶10

The l-d. Counsel of the applicant bank^{has requestedfor} refund of the court fees. It is submitted that the entire settlement amount has been^paid by the defendants and the loan accounts has been closed, therefore, the^court fees may be refunded as^{per provisions} contained in the rules. In this regard the Honble Supreme Court has^passed 9,\

¶11

the order in SLP(c) No(s).723l2023^{dated 28.01.2025titled} as Jage Ram Vs Ved Kaur & Ors.^{The Hontle Supreme} Couft has considered the matter and^{has held that:}

¶12

Para 6- The refund of couft fes^{is permissible only if,} the matter is referrd to ArbitratioL^ConciliatioL judicial settlement, including through Lok Adalat or mediation for sttlement and the as is deciddⁱⁿ terms of such a settlement and not otherwie.

¶13

Para 7- In the ase at hand, the setflement^{in terms} of which the sxond appeal^was duided by^{the High} Court is not on reference to any of^{the above} authorities/fora rather it was an amicable^setflement out of the court

¶14

Para 8- Acardingly, we are of the opinbn^{that the} peiltioner is not entitld to refund of the court frc and the High Court has not committed any^{eror or} illqality in refusing such a^prayer."

¶15

In view of the above, OAl69612022^is dismissed^as withdrawn. The applicant bank has also sought^refund of couft fee. The mafter has not been disposed of on^the basis of settlement in Lok Adalat. There appears^no occasion to returrn the cciurt fee. The matter^{has been} withdrawn due to the entire settlement amount^{has been} paid by the defendants and the loan accounts has been closed. Therefore, the^prayer of the applicant bank for refund of couft fees is hereby declined. All^the pending IAs stand disposed of. IA no.352812025 and LA no.3629120.25 is disposed off accordingly.

¶16

File be consigned to record room.

¶17

;F (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶18

Idfc Bank Limited v. Ms Go Plast Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idfc Bank Limited v. Ms Go Plast Private Limited

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