Dismissed

State Bank of India v. Saurabh

DRT28 Jul 2025TA/305/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal of Delhi allowed the State Bank of India to withdraw an originallia after the loan was settled off. The court declined the bank's request for refund of court fees as the settlement was an out-of-court compromise, not a mediation or Lok Adalat reference.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for refund of court fees is declined. The withdrawal application is disposed of. Pending IAs disposed of accordingly.

State Bank of India versus Saurabh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Debts Recovely Tribuna!-Il, Delhi

¶2

TAl3O5l2023 STATE BANK OF INDIAVS SAURABH KUMAR

¶3

28.07.2025 Item no. 11

¶4

Present: Shri Pradeep Dhaka, counsel for applicant bank.

¶5

Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/ Hybrid Mode.

¶6

2.lA no.774l2i21 has been filed by the applicant bank for withdrawal of the^present OA.

¶7

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank submits that during the^pendency of the TA, defendants have^settled their loan account and the loan account has been^{closed in} the books of the applicant bank and nothing^{remains to} recover from the defendants. Therefore,^{the applicant bank} wishes to withdraw the captioned OA and^prayedfor refund of the couft fee.

¶8

Heard the Ld. Counsel for applicant bank and^perused the records.

¶9

The l-d. Counsel of the applicant^{bank has requestedfor} refund of the court fees. It is submitted^{that defendants} have settled their loan account and the^{loan accounthas} been closed and therefore, the^{court fees may be refunded} as per^provisions contained in^{the rules. In this regard} theW Honble Supreme Couft has^{passedthe order in} SLP(c) No(s).723/2023 datd 28.01.2025^{friled as Jage} Ram Vs Vd Kaur & Orc. The Hontle^{SupremeCourt has} considered the matter and has^held that:

¶10

Pan 6- The refund of cowt fes^{is permissible only if,} the matter is refend to Arbitration,^{Conciliation,} judicr'al setflemenl including through Lok Adalat or medt'ation fo0r settlement and the cax is driddⁱⁿ terms of such a settlement and not otherwis.

¶11

Para 7- In the cas at hand, the #tAement in terms of which the second appeal was duided by the High Court is not on reference to any of the above authorities/fura rather it was an amicable settlement out of the court

¶12

Para 8- Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitld to refund of the coutt fffi and the High Court has not committed any error or illqality in refusing such a prayer."

¶13

In view of the above, TA|3OS|2O23 is dismissed as withdrawn. The applicant bank has also sought refund of court fee. The matter has not been disposed of on the basis of setdement in Lok Adalat. There appears no occasion to return the court fee. The matter has been withdrawn due to defendants have seftled their loan account and the loan account has been closed. Therefore, the prayer of the applicant bank for rcfund of court fees is hereby declined. All the pending IAs stand disposed of. IA no.77412025 is disposed off accordingly.

¶14

File be consigned to record room.

¶15

Date fixed before this Tribunal on t7.O9.2O25 stands cancelled.

¶16

C.I, (susHrl KUMAR RASTOGT) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶17

State Bank of India v. Saurabh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Saurabh

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