Dismissed

Union Bank of India v. Sh Ravi Shankar Dwivedi

DRT29 Apr 2025TA/840/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi, allowed the withdrawal of the original transfer application filed by Union Bank of India as the matter was settled out of court. However, the prayer for refund of court fees was declined because the settlement was not referred to a conciliation or mediation panel as required by Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal of the original transfer application allowed; prayer for refund of court fees declined.

Union Bank of India versus Sh Ravi Shankar Dwivedi — DRT (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Debts RecovelY Tribunal-Il,^Delhi

¶2

TAlStl'Ol2023

¶3

UNION BANK OF INDIA^{VS SH RAVI SHANKARDWIVEDI}

¶4

29.M.202s

¶5

Item no.69

¶6

Present: Mr. Sandeep Soni, Prory Counselfor^Mr. Samarendra Kumar,^{Counselfor applicant bank} None for defendanb

¶7

Matter is taken through^{VideoConferencing/ HybridMode.}

¶8

IA no.496212024 has been^{filed by the applicant bank for} withdrawal of the Present^TA.

¶9

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant^{bank submitsthat the} defendants approached the^{applicant bank for amicable} settlement and^proposed to^{pay the total outstandingduesto} settle the entire liability.^{The defendants have already paid the} entire settlement amount to the applicant^{bank and the} applicant bank has issued the^{No Dues Crrtificate,hence} nothing remains to recover against the defendants^{in the} present Originalfl-ransfer Application. He further submits that he wish to withdraw the^{present TA.}

¶10

The Ld. Counsel of the applicant^{has also requested for} refund of the Gourt fees. It^{is submittedthat the matterhas} 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 l(aur & Ors. The} Hontle Supreme Court has considered the^{matter and has held} that:

¶11

Para 6- The refund of aurt fes^{is permissible} only it, the maXer is rebnd to Arbitratio4 @nciliation, judicial *ttlement, including through Lok Adalat or mdiation for stdement and the cas is dsiddⁱⁿ terms of such a sttlement and not otherwis.

¶12

Para 7- In the cae at han4 the stilement in terms of which the wond appeal was d*idd by the High Court is not on reference to any of the aLtove authoritis/fora rather it was an amicable sttlement out of the aurt

¶13

Para 8- Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitld to refund of the court fes and the High @urt has not ammittd any enor or illqaliU in refusing such a pr?yg+"

¶14

clr.

¶15

In view of the above, it is clear^{that if the matter has been} settled out of the court without^{any referencefrom the court or} Tribunal, the couft fees cannot^{be refunded. Therefore, the} prayer of the applicant for refund of court fees is^hereby declined. IA no.496212024 is^{allowed. TN84iO|2023 is} dismissed as withdrawn.

¶16

File be consigned to record^room.

¶17

s,\ (SUSHIL KuMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, DCIhi

Union Bank of India v. Sh Ravi Shankar Dwivedi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh Ravi Shankar Dwivedi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases