Debts Recovery Tribunal Il Delhi allowed withdrawal of TA 15L12024 following amicable settlement. Refund plea on court fees rejected per Supreme Court ruling requiring prior reference to arbitration or mediation for eligibility.
Withdrawal of appeal allowed; prayer for refund of court fees declined.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi
TAlsLl20.24 STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs VARUN VERMA
29.10.202s
Item no.08
Present Ms. Shreshta, Proxy Counsel for Mr. Gauravprakash, Counsel for applicant bank
Ms. Neha Malik, Prory Counsel for defendant no.3
Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode.
IA no.273812025 has been filed by the appticant bank for withdrawal of the present TA.
The Prory Counsel for the applicant bank submits that the present matter has been amicably settled between the parties, the settlement amount has already been received by the applicant bank. Pursuant to receipt of settlement amount, the loan account of the defendant maintained with the applicant bank also stands closed. Since, the matter stands settled between the parties therefore, there is no purpose remaining to pursue the present case any further. Hence, the applicant bank wishes to withdraw the present TA.
The Proxy Counsel for the applicant bank has also filed I,[l280612O25 for refund of the court fees. It is submitted that the matter has been settled and therefore, the couft fees may be refunded as per provisions contained in the rules. In this regard the Hontle Supreme Court has passed the order in 9LP(c) No(s).723/2023 dated 28.01.2025 titled as Jage Ram Vs Ved Kaur & Orc. The Hontle Supreme Court has considered the matter and has held that:
Para 6- The refund of court fees is permissible only if, the matter is referred to Arbitration, Conciliation, judicial settlement, including through Lok Adalat or mediation for settlement and the case is decided in terms of such a sfflement and not otherwise.
Para 7- In the case at hanQ the settlement in terms of which the recond appalwas decided by the High Coutt is not on reference to any of the above authorities/fora rather it was an amicable settlement out ofthe court
Para B- Accordingly, we are of the opinbn that the petitioner is not entitled to refund gf,pe court fees
and the High Court has notcommittedany eror or illqality in refusing such aprayer."
In view of the above, it is clearthat if the matter has been settled out of the court without anyreference from the courtor Tribunal, the court fees cannot be refunded.Therefore,the prayerof the applicant bank for refund of courtfees IA/280612025is hereby declined.
In view of the above submissionmade by the Ld. Counselfor applicant bank, IA no.273812025is allowed. TAl5Ll2024is dismissed as withdrawn.
File be consigned to recordroom.
a
(susHrl K6MAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jage Ram Vs Ved Kaur & Ors.Referred¶10
IPL(c) No(s).723/2023 dated 28.01.2025 titled as Jage Ram Vs Ved Kaur & Orc.
State Bank of India
Varun Verma
Sushil Kumar Rastogi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
