Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. Ms Rukmini Iron Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

DRT21 May 2026OA/449/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed a withdrawal application because the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process completed with plan implementation. It dismissed a refund of court fee prayer, relying on a Supreme Court precedent that bars refunds for non-referred out-of-court settlements.

What did the court decide?

The withdrawal application (IA no.2868/2025) was allowed; the main application was dismissed as withdrawn; original documents to be returned; request for court fee refund declined.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Ms Rukmini Iron Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶2

oLl44pl2022 INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK VS MS RUKMINI IRON PVT LTD AND ORS

¶3

21.0s.2026

¶4

Item no.37

¶5

Present Ms. Deeksha, Prory Counsel for Mr. RK Sinha, Counsel for applicant bank None for defendants

¶6

Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/ Hybrid Mode.

¶7

IA no.2868/2025 has been filed by the applicant bank for withdrawal of the present OA.

¶8

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank submitted that applicant Bank wants to inform this Tribunal that as the Company Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Rukmini Iron Private Ltd was initiated the resolution plan vide orders dated LL.05.2022 passed by Hon'ble NCLT, New Delhi. And as on today the resolution plan is implemented successfully in the matter and all the payments envisaged under the Plan have been duly discharged. Therefore, the applicant bank does not wish to pursue the present proceedings any further against the defendants in the present case. Hence, the applicant bank wishes to withdraw the present OA. The Proxy Counsel for applicant bank also prayed for return of the original documents.

¶9

The Ld. 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 C,ouft has passed the order in SLP(c) No(s).723/2023 dated 28.01.2025 titled as Jage Ram Vs Ved Kaur & Ors. The Honble Supreme Court has considered the matter and has held that:

¶10

Para 6- The refund of court fes is permissible only ifi the matter is referrd to Arbitratioq Conciliation, judicial xttlemenl including through Lok Adalat or medr?tion for sttlement and the case is decidd in terms of such a settlement and not otherwis.

¶11

Para 7- In the case at han4 the settlement in terms of which the recond appeal was decided by the High Court is not on reference to any of the above authorities/fora rather it was an amiable sttlement out of the court

¶12

¶13

Para B- Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to refund of the court fes and the High Court has not committd any error or illegaliU in refusing such a^prayer."

¶14

In view of the above, it is clear that if the matter has been settled out of the court without any reference from the court or^Tribunal, the court fees cannot be refunded. Therefore, the^prayer of^the applicant bank for refund of court fees^{is herebydeclined.}

¶15

In view of the above submission made by the Ld. Counsel^for applicant bank, IA no.2BGBl2025 is allowed. ON44912022^is dismissed as withdrawn. Registry is directed to^{return the} original documents after keeping the ceftified copies^on

¶16

File be consigned to record room.

¶17

q', (susHl L KUI\4AK' RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

Indian Overseas Bank v. Ms Rukmini Iron Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. Ms Rukmini Iron Pvt. Ltd. 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