Dismissed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Garg Roadlines

DRT24 Jul 2025TA/1105/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Darbhanga Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an Original Application as withdrawn. The applicant bank sought a refund of court fees due to a post-pendency settlement between parties. The court declined the refund request, noting the settlement occurred outside Lok Adalat or mediation, thus not meeting Supreme Court conditions for fee refunds.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for refund of court fees was declined; the Original Application was dismissed as withdrawn.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Garg Roadlines — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRT (2025)

¶1

Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶2

TAlLLO5l2022

¶3

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK UMITED VS GARG ROADLINES GAR.G

¶4

24.07.2025

¶5

Item no. 16

¶6

Present: Shri Mohan Singh, counsel for applicant bank. None for defendants.

¶7

Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/ Hybrid Mode.

¶8

IA no.2o58l2025 has been filed by the applicant bank for withdrawal of the present OA.

¶9

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank submits that during the^pendency of the TA, defendants herein have approached the applicant bank and have paid the full and final payment for settling their dues in their loan accounts maintained with the applicant bank. It is submitted that applicant bank has also closed the Loan Accounts in its books of account, hence the Defendants have discharged from their liability after making the payment to the Applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant bank wishes to withdraw the captioned OA and prayed for refund of the court fee.

¶10

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

¶11

The Ld. Counsel of the applicant bank has requested for refund of the court fees. It is submitted that matter has been settled between the parties and therefore, the court fees may be refunded as per provisions contained in the rules. In this regard theW Hontle Supreme Court has passed the order in SLP(c) No(s).723/2023 datd 28.01.2025 titled as -lage Ram Vs Vd Kaur & Ors. The <)

¶12

Honble Supreme Court has considered the matter and has held that:

¶13

Para 6- The refund of court fes s permissble only it the mafier is referrd to Arbitratio4 Conciliation, judicial sttlement, including through Lok Adalat or mediabon for eXlement and the case is d*rdd in terms of such a settlement and not otherwie.

¶14

Para 7- In the cae at hanQ the settlement in terms of which the *cond appeal was duidd by the High Court is not on reference to any of the above authorities/fora rather it was an amicable setdement out of the court

¶15

Pan 8- Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the petrtioner is not entifld to refund of the court fes and the High hurt has not committd any error or illegality in refusing such a prayer."

¶16

In view of the above, TAlLl.OSl2O22 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. Therefore, the prayer of the applicant bank for rcfund of court fees is hereby declined. All the pending IAs stand disposed of. IA no.2o58/2025 is disposed off accordingly.

¶17

File be consigned to record room.

¶18

O.. (susHrl KUM(R nnsrocrl PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶19

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Garg Roadlines

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Garg Roadlines

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