Partly allowed

Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Vinod Cut Piece Centre

DRT23 Jun 2026OA/637/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal considered a request for withdrawal of an Outstanding Assets application and refund of court fees. The applicant claimed an amiable settlement of the loan occurred. Relying on a Supreme Court precedent distinguishing out-of-court settlements from court-referred ones, the Tribunal held that court fees are not refundable for out-of-court settlements and dismissed the OA a

What did the court decide?

IA for withdrawal allowed; prayer for refund of court fees declined; OA dismissed as withdrawn.

Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. versus M/s. Vinod Cut Piece Centre — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

Debts Recovety Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶2

0A1637l202s

¶3

PHOENIX ARC PVT LTD Vs M/S.^{VINOD CUT PIECE} CENTRE TAIN

¶4

23.06.2026

¶5

Item no. 33

¶6

Present Ms. Chandni Sadana, counsel for^{applicant FI.} None for defendants.

¶7

Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/^{hybrid Mode.}

¶8

IA no.97Ol2Q,26 has been^{filed by the applicant FI for} withdrawal of the^present OA.

¶9

The Ld. Counsel for the^{applicant FI submits that the} Borrower/Defendant settled the^{loan and paid the settlement} amount of Rs.75,00,000/-^{(Rupees Seventy-Five Lacs Only).} Hence the^present matter^{has been amicablysettled betweenthe} parties. She fufther submits that she wishes to^{withdraw the} present OA.

¶10

The Ld. Counsel of the^{applicant FI has also requested for} refund of the coutt^{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} dated 28.01.2025 titted^{as Jage Ram Vs Ved Kaur & Ors. The} Honble Supreme Court^{has consideredthe matter and has held} that:

¶11

Para 6- The refund of court fes^{is permissible only if,} the matter is refeTed to^{Arbitration, Conciliation,} judiciat settlement, including through Lok Adalat or mediation for settlement and^{the case is decided in} terms of such a settlement^{and not otherwis.}

¶12

Para 7- In the case at hanQ^{the settlement in terms of} which the second appeal was drcidfl.by^{the High} gr

¶13

Court is not on reference to^{any of the above} authorities/fora rather it^{was an amiablesettlement} out of the court,

¶14

Para B- Accordingty, we are^{of the opinion that the} petitioner is not entitled to refund of^{the court fees and} the High couft has not^{committedany erroror illqality} in refusing such a PraYer."

¶15

In view of the^{above,it is clear that if the matter has been} settled out of the couft^{without any referencefrom the couft or} Tribunal, the couft fees^{cannotbe refunded. Therefore, the prayer} of the applicant^FI for^{refund of court fees is hereby declined.IA} no.97!,l2[26 is allowed.^{OA 637} 12025^{is dismissedas} withdrawn. Atl the^{pending IAs stand disposed of.}

¶16

File be consigned to^{record room.}

¶17

9 (susHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-II, Delhi

¶18

Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Vinod Cut Piece Centre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Vinod Cut Piece Centre

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