Partly allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Jai Maa Durga Tradex Pvt. Ltd.

DRT18 Jun 2025TA/692/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal considered an application by the applicant bank seeking withdrawal of a transfer application and refund of court fees after a one-time out-of-court settlement was reached. The Tribunal held that since the settlement was not reached through arbitration, conciliation, or Lok Adalat as required by applicable rules, the refund of court fees was not permissible. Consequently, the withdrawa

What did the court decide?

IA no. 1309/2025 was allowed for withdrawal of Transfer Application. Refund of court fees was declined.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Jai Maa Durga Tradex Pvt… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRT (2025)

¶1

Debts RecoverY Tribunal-Il,^Delhi

¶2

TAl69212024

¶3

BANK OF BARODA^{VS M/S JAI MAA DURGATRADEX PVT.} LTD.

¶4

18.06.2025

¶5

Item no.37

¶6

Present: Mr. Sougat^{Sinha,C-ounsel for applicant bank} None for defendants

¶7

Matter is taken^{through Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode'}

¶8

IA no.130912il25^{has been filed by the applicant bank for} withdrawal of the Present^TA.

¶9

The Ld. C.ounbel^{for the applicantbank submitsthat the One} rime setttement^{has been'arrived betweenthe applicant bank} unO tn" borrower^{and the said loan account of the borrower} nis ueen regularized.^{The present dispute is settled between} ure ipprrcani^{bank and defendantson the basis of the oTS.} ri1lr"?6r", applicant^{bankprays for withdrawing the above-} noted Transfer^{Applicationfrom this Hon'ble Court'}

¶10

The Ld. Counsel^{of the applicanthas also requested for} refund of the^{court fees. It is submittedthat the matterhas} been t"ttf"O^{and therefore,the court fees mayOe refu{ed-gs} p"i-pt*iilons contained^{in the rules'In this regardtne} !!1-tlefipi;; Court^{has passedthe order in 1LP(c) No(s):7?3/2923} -ttA ia.0t.2025 fr'fld as Jage Ram vs ved Kaur & orc'The lontf" Supreme^{Couft has cdnsidered the matter and has held} that

¶11

Para 6- The^{refund of court fees is permissible only} ii ne mat@r^{is refendto Arbitration,Conciliation'} iudiciat *ttlement,^{inctuding throughLok Adalat or} '*iition for sttlement and the case is decidd in terms of^{such a stilement and not otherwise'}

¶12

Para 7- In^{tte cag at han4 the settlement in terms} of which^{the wond appat was decidedby the High} @urt is^{not on reierence to any of the above} iiiorities/fora^{rather it was an amicablesettlement} out of the ourt

¶13

Para 8-^{Accordingly, we are of the oplion that the} iiti*",^{is not-entttldto refund of the court fes} ia n"^{High Court has not commixd any etor or} ittqality iirefusing^sscha PmYer"'

¶14

In view of^{the above,it is clear that if the matter has been one} iir"-t"ttf"*"nt^{(OT3) out of the coutt without any reference} iro, $r" iorrt^{oi rtiornit, the couf,pescannotbe refunded'}

¶15

Therefore, the^{prayer of} the^{applicantfor refund of court fees is} hereby declined.

¶16

In view of the above^{submissionmade by the Ld. Counsel for} applicant bank, IA^{no.1309/2025 is allowed.TA169212024 is} dismissed as^withdrawn.

¶17

File be consigned to^{record room.}

¶18

(SUSHIL KU I\NAR ^ RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Jai Maa Durga Tradex Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Jai Maa Durga Tradex Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases