Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Arcadia Share & Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.

DRT17 Sept 2025TA/12/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's interim application for withdrawal and refused the prayer for refund of court fees, citing the Supreme Court that out-of-court settlements without mandatory reference do not qualify for fee refunds. The main TA was dismissed as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

IA no.248912025 allowed; court fees refund declined; main TA dismissed as withdrawn; all pending IAs disposed of.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Arcadia Share & Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. — DRT (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶2

TAl12l2022

¶3

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED Vs ARCADIA SHARE & STOCK BROKERS PvT LTD

¶4

17.09.2025

¶5

Item no. 17

¶6

Present: Ms. Sanya Lamba, counsel for applicant bank. Mr. Dhruv Wadhwa, counsel for defendant no.3.

¶7

Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/ hybrid Mode.

¶8

2.IA no.248912025 has been filed by the applicant bank for withdrawal of the present TA.

¶9

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank submits that the loan account stands closed and No Dues Ceftificate stands issued as on L7.07.2025. She further submits that she wish to withdraw the present TA.

¶10

The Ld. Counsel of the applicant bank has also requested for refund of the court fees. It is submitted that the matter has been settled and therefore, the court fees may be refunded as^per provisions contained in the rules. In this regard the Hontle Supreme Couft has^passed the order in SLP(c) No(s).723/2023 dated 28.01.2025 titled as Jage Ram Vs Ved Kaur & Ors. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the matter and^{has held} that:

¶11

Para 6- The refund of court fes is^permissible only if, the mafier is referd to Arbitration, Conciliatioo judicial settlement including through Lok Adalat or mediation for settlement and the cas is decided in terms of such a settlement and not otherwise.

¶12

Para 7- In the case at han4 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 sefflement out of the court. Crf..

¶13

Para B- Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitld to refund of the couft fees and the High Court has not committed any eror or illqality in refusing such a prayer."

¶14

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. IA no.248912025 is allowed. TA L2l2O22 is dismissed as withdrawn. Allthe pending IAs stand disposed of.

¶15

File be consigned to record room.

¶16

$,A^{</sup> (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-II, Delhi}

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Arcadia Share & Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Arcadia Share & Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.

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