Partly allowed

Yes Bank v. Rajendra Kumar Proprietor of R K Traders

DRT17 Dec 2025OA/796/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi, heard an application to withdraw an Original Application and refund court fees. The Tribunal relied on a Supreme Court judgment holding that out-of-court settlements do not qualify for fee refunds. The withdrawal was allowed, but the fee refund prayer was declined.

What did the court decide?

IA no.350612025 allowed; Original Application (OA) No. 079612025 dismissed as withdrawn. Prayer for refund of court fees declined.

Yes Bank versus Rajendra Kumar Proprietor of R K Traders — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il,^Delhi

¶2

oLl796l2O2s YES BANKVS RATENDRA^{KUMAR PROPRIETOROF R K} TRADERS KUMAR

¶3

t7.L2.2025

¶4

Item no.53

¶5

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

¶6

Matter is taken through^{Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode.}

¶7

IA no.35o6l2O25 has been^{filed by the applicant bank for} withdrawal of the Present^OA.

¶8

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant^{bankhumbly submitsthat the} matter has been settled and^{the loan accounts ofthe defendants} has been closed accordingly.^{Therefore,the applicantbankseeks} permission of this Honble Tribunal to withdraw^{the present} Original Application,^{as settled. Hence, the applicantbank wishes} to withdraw the Present OA.

¶9

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant^{bank has also requested} for refund of the couft fees.^{It is submiftedthat the matter} has been settled and^{therefore, the coutt 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 dated 28.01.2025^{titled as Jage Ram Vs Ved} Kaur & Ors. The Honble^{SupremeCourt has considered the} matter and has held that:

¶10

Para 6- The refund of court^{fees is permissible only} it the matter is refered to Arbitration,^{Conciliation,} judicial settlement, including through Lok Adalat or mediation for rettlement and^{the ase is deciddin} terms of such a settlement^{and not otherwis.}

¶11

=-+----

¶12

Para 7- In the ase at hanQ^{the settlementin terms} of which the *cond appal^{was decided by the High} Court is not on reference^{to any of the above} authorities/fora^{rather it was an amicable fittlement} out of the court.

¶13

Para 8- Accordingly, we are of^{the opinion that the} petitioner is not entitld to refund of the court fes and the High Court^{has not committdany enor or} illegality in refusing such a^prayer."

¶14

In view of the above, it is^clear that^{if the mafter has been seftled} out of the court^{withoutany reference from the courtor Tribunal,} the court fees cannot be^{refunded.Therefore, the prayer of the} applicant bank for^refund of^{court feesjq hereby declined.} c)

¶15

In view of the above submission made by the Ld. Counsel for applicant bank, IA no.350612025 is allowed. ON79612025^is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶16

File be consigned to record room.

¶17

s), (SUSHIL Kijmnn RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

Yes Bank v. Rajendra Kumar Proprietor of R K Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank v. Rajendra Kumar Proprietor of R K Traders

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