Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr Jitender Guglani

DRT20 Jun 2025TA/206/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an application for withdrawal of a transfer application in a recovery matter where the loan account had been settled and closed, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal. It declined the prayer for refund of court fees, distinguishing the Supreme Court case which concerned in-court settlement.

What did the court decide?

IA No. 1264/2025 allowed; TN 2061/2024 dismissed as withdrawn; prayer for refund of court fees declined.

State Bank of India versus Mr Jitender Guglani — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delha

¶2

TAl20,6l2024 STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs MR JITENDER GUGLANI

¶3

20.06.2025 Item no.l1

¶4

Present: Mr. Pradeep Dhaka, Counselfor applicant bank Ms. Ritu, Prory Counsel for Mr. Rahul Majumdar, Counsel for defendant no.2 None for defendant no.l

¶5

Matter is taken through Mdeo Conferencing/Hybrid mode.

¶6

IA no.126412025 has been filed by the applicant bank for withdrawal of the^present TA.

¶7

The Ld. Counsel for the appticant bank submits that during the continuance of the^pleading of the case before this^Hon'ble Tribunal, the defendants have cleared their liability.^As the^loan account has already been closed in the books of the^applicant bank and nothing remains to reover from the defendanb.^As the loan account has already stands closed, no^{purpose would} be served with conUnuance of the^present original^application and as such the applicant bank wishes to withdraw the^said transfer application No. 20612024.

¶8

The Ld. Counsel of the applicant has also rcquested^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} datd 28.01.2025 titld as Jage Ram^Vs Vd^Kaur &^{Ots. The} Hontle Supreme Court has considered the matter and^{has held} that:

¶9

Para 5- The refund of ourt frc is^permissiblq only if the matter is rcferrd to ArbitratioL @nciliatioL judicial settlement, including through Lok Adalat or mdiation for etflement and the care is drciddⁱⁿ terms of such a stflement and not otherwis.

¶10

Para 7- In the as at han4 the stdement in terms of which the wond appal was dsidd^{by the High} Court is not on reference to any of the^above authorities/fon raffter it was an amiable etilement out of the court.

¶11

Para 8- Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entidd b refund of the court frc and the High Court has not committd any enor or illegality in refusing such a^prayer."

¶12

¶13

In view of the above, it is clear that if the mafter 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 for refund of court fees is hereby declined.

¶14

In view of the above submission made by the Ld. Counsel for applicant banlq IA no.L26412025 is allowed. TN20612024 as dismissed as withdrawn.

¶15

File be consigned to record room.

¶16

sl(susHrl KUFTAR RASTOGT) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

State Bank of India v. Mr Jitender Guglani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr Jitender Guglani

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