Allowed

State Bank of India v. Raju Aggarwal

DRT30 Oct 2025TA/1913/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application for withdrawal of a Taxation Appeal and declined the prayer for refund of court fees, noting that out-of-court settlements do not warrant fee refunds under settled Supreme Court law.

What did the court decide?

The application for withdrawal of the Taxation Appeal was allowed. The prayer for refund of court fees was declined. The Taxation Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

State Bank of India versus Raju Aggarwal — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶2

TA/191312022 STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs RA,U AGGARWAL

¶3

30.10.2025 Item no.7

¶4

Present: Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, counsel for applicant bank. None for defendants.

¶5

Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/ hybrid Mode.

¶6

IA No.274912O25 is filed by the applicant bank for substitution of authorized representative. The IA is forma! in nature, hence, it is allowed.

¶7

IA no.275012025 has been filed by the applicant bank for withdrawal of the present TA.

¶8

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank submits that the matter has been settled under the OTS scheme. He fufther submits that he wish to withdraw the present TA. Ld. Counsel for applicant bank also prayed for refund of the couft fee.

¶9

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 Court has passed the order in SLP(c) No(s).723/2023 dated 28.01.2025 titted as Jage Ram Vs Ved Kaur d Ors. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the matter and has held that:

¶10

Para 6- The refund of court fees is prmissible only if the matter is referd to Arbitratioq Conciliation, judicial settlement, including through Lok Adalat or mediation for rettlement and the cafi is decided in terms of such a settlement and nltglhwise.

¶11

¶12

Para 7- In the case at han4 the settlement in terms of which the second appeal was decided by the High Court is not on reference to any of the above authorities/fora rather it was an amicable settlement out of the court.

¶13

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

¶14

In view of the above, it is clear that if the matter has been settled out of the couft 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.2750l2025 is allowed. TA LgL3l2O22 is dismissed as withdrawn. All the pending IAs stand disposed of.

¶15

File be consigned to record room.

¶16

t0 've (susHrL KUM(R RASTOGT) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-II, Delhi

¶17

State Bank of India v. Raju Aggarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Raju Aggarwal

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