Partly allowed

State Bank of India v. Yogendra Chaudhary

DRT22 Aug 2025TA/1219/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's withdrawal of the outstanding Tribunal Application after full dues were recovered. The prayer for refund of court fees was dismissed, citing a Supreme Court precedent requiring settlement via arbitration or mediation for such refunds.

What did the court decide?

IA no.16391/2025 allowed for withdrawal of TA. Prayer for refund of court fees declined. Pending IAs disposed of.

State Bank of India versus Yogendra Chaudhary — Service and Employment | DRT (2025)

¶1

Debts Recovely Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶2

TAlL2L9l2023

¶3

STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs YOGENDRA CHAUDHARY

¶4

22.08.2025

¶5

Item no. 10

¶6

Present: Ms. Jaya Tomar, counselfor applicant bank. Ms. Ritu, prory counsel for defendant no.2.

¶7

Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/ hybrid Mode.

¶8

IA no.163912025 has been filed by the applicant bank for withdrawal of the present TA.

¶9

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank submits that since the Applicant Bank had received its entire dues from the defendant no.l under the loan account. 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 Honble Supreme Court has passed the order in SLP(c) No(s).223/2023 datd 28.01.2025 titld as Jage Ram Vs Vd Kaur & Orc. The Honble Supreme Court has considered the matter and has held that:

¶11

Para 6- The refund of court fes is permissible only if, the matter is referrd to Arbitration, Conciliation, judr?r?l settlemenl including through Lok Adalat or mdiation for *ttlement and the ase is duidd in terms of such a sttlement and not otherwis.

¶12

Para 7- In the ca* at hand, the stdement in terms of which the ssond appeal was drcidd by the High Court is not on reference to any of the above authoritbs/fora rather it was an amicable rettlement out of the court.

¶13

¶14

Para 8- Accordingf, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitld to refund of the court fes and the High Court has notcommittd any erroror illqality in refusing such a prayer."

¶15

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.163912025 is allowed. TA L2l9l2O23 is dismissed as withdrawn. All the pending IAs stand disposed of.

¶16

File be consigned to record room.

¶17

qx. (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICE& DRT-II, Delhi

State Bank of India v. Yogendra Chaudhary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Yogendra Chaudhary

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