Partly allowed

State Bank of India v. Rajendra Kumar and Ors.

DRT23 Jan 2026OA/363/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application by the State Bank of India for withdrawal of the main application and refund of court fees, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the withdrawal after noting that the loan account was closed upon out-of-court settlement. The Tribunal declined the refund claim, relying on Supreme Court precedent that refund requires reference to arbitration or Lok Adalat. The main application was di

What did the court decide?

Application IA no.2044/2025 allowed; refund of court fees declined; OA No.3631/2022 dismissed as withdrawn.

State Bank of India versus Rajendra Kumar and Ors. — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶2

oAl363l2022

¶3

STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs RAIENDRA KUMAR AND ORS

¶4

23.0t.2026

¶5

Item no.22

¶6

Present: Mr. Navneet, Prory Counsel for Ms. Shalini Upadhaya, Counsel for applicant bank None for defendants

¶7

Matter is taken through Mdeo Conferencing/Hybrid mode.

¶8

IA no.2o44l2025 has been filed by the applicant bank for withdrawal of the present TA.

¶9

The Prory Counsel for the applicant bank submitted that bank has received the sum of Rs.74,84,092- (Rupees Seventy Four Lac Eighty Four Thousand and Ninety Seven Only) in full and final settlement and loan account has been closed. The applicant bank wants to withdraw the present OA No. 36312022.

¶10

I The Proxy Counsel for the applicant bank has also requested for refund of the couft 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 Honble Supreme Court has passed the order in SLP(c) No(s).723/2023 datd 28.01.2025 titld as Jage Ram Vs Ved Kaur & Orc. The Honble Supreme Court has considered the matter and has held that:

¶11

",I

¶12

Para 6- The refund of court fes is permissible only if, the mafuer is referred to Arbitration, Conciliation, judicial rettlement, including through Lok Adalat or medbtion for sfilement and the ase is decided in terms of such a settlement and not otherwis.

¶13

Para 7- In the case at hanQ the sefflement in terms of which the second appeal was decided by the High , Court is not on reference to any of the above authorities/fora rather it was an amicable settlement out of the court.

¶14

Para 8- Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to refund of the court fees and the High Court has not ommittd any eror or illqality in refusing such a prayer."

¶15

In view of the above, it is clear that if the matter has been settled I out of the court without any reference from the court or Tribunal, the court fees cannot be refunded. Therefore, the prayer of the refund of court fees is hereb-y_declined. tA'

¶16

In view of the above submission made by the Ld. Counsel for applicant bank, IA no.204412025 is allowed. ON36312022^is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶17

File be consigned to record room.

¶18

t).\

¶19

¶20

(SUSHIL KorvrAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶21

DRT-II, Delhi

State Bank of India v. Rajendra Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Rajendra Kumar and Ors.

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