Partly allowed

Punjab National Bank v. M/S Intec Capital Limited

DRT28 Apr 2025TA/1524/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal addressed an application for withdrawal of a Transfer Application and refund of court fees following an out-of-court settlement. Relying on the Supreme Court in Jage Ram, the Tribunal held that out-of-court settlements do not qualify for court fee refunds. It allowed the withdrawal application, dismissed the Transfer Application, and declined the fee refund.

What did the court decide?

IA no.915/2025 allowed; TA refused.

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Intec Capital Limited — DRT (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶2

TAlLs24l2023 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs M/S INTEC CAPTTAL LIMITED

¶3

28.04.2025

¶4

Item no. 87

¶5

Present: Mr. Aditya Kumar Jha, counsel for applicant bank. Ms. Supreeti Chauhan, counsel for defendant no.1 to 5.

¶6

Ms. Kaushiki Kashyap, counsel for defendant no.6.

¶7

Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/ hybrid Mode.

¶8

IA no.91512025^joint application has been filed by the applicant bank for withdrawal of the^present TA.

¶9

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank submits^{. That the} settlement/compromise has been done between the^Applicant Banks and the Defendants with all due deliberations,^precautions and with default clauses as such keeping recovery^of the^national exchequer expeditiously out of which entire^{remainingamounts} are to be^paid by the Defendants. It^{is also submitted that the} Applicant Banks has to enter and recover^such amounts^{in the} backdrop of the seftlement so it^{has been necessitatedand the} present Application has been moved bonafidely and^{genuinely in} order to materialize the said settlemenV^{compromisebetween} the^parties herein smoothly and effectively.

¶10

The Ld. Counsel of the applicant^{bank has also requestedfor} refund of the court fees. It is submitted that^{the matterhas been} settled and therefore, the court fees may be^{refunded as per} provisions contained in the rules. In this regard the^Honble Supreme Couft has^passed the order^{in SLP(c)No(s).723/2023} dated 28.01.2025 titld as Jage Ram^{Vs Ved Kaur & Orc' The} ql

¶11

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

¶12

Para 6- The refund of couft fees is permissibte onty if the matter is referd to Arbitration, Concitiatio4 judicial settlement, including through Lok Adalat or mediation for settlement and the cae is decidd in terms of such a settlement and not otherwise.

¶13

Para 7- In the case at hane the settlement in terms of which the second appeal was drided by the High Court is not on reference to any of the above authorities/fora rather it was an amicabte setilement out of the court.

¶14

Para 8- Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the petitioner b not entitld to refund of the court fees and the High Court has not committd any eror or illegality 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.915/2025 is altowed. TA L52412023 is dismissed as withdrawn. All the pending IAs stand disposed of.

¶16

File be consigned to record room.

¶17

__-1$ (susHrl KUI{AR RASTOGT) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-II, Delhi

Punjab National Bank v. M/S Intec Capital Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. M/S Intec Capital 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