Partly allowed

Yes Bank v. Vipin Rajan Tyagi

DRT27 Aug 2026OA/748/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT considered an application to withdraw an originating aircraft and a prayer for refund of court fees, where the applicant claimed a settlement outside court. Relying on a Supreme Court judgment, the court held that refunds are only permissible for settlements arising from court-referred processes. Consequently, the fee refund prayer was declined, while the withdrawal request was allowed as

What did the court decide?

IA no.252912026 for withdrawal of OA allowed; prayer for refund of court fees declined; main OA ON74812023 dismissed as withdrawn.

Yes Bank versus Vipin Rajan Tyagi — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶2

o[l748l20.23 YES BANK Vs VIPIN RAIAN TYAGI

¶3

27.08.2026

¶4

Item no.28

¶5

Present: Ms. Sonia Rawat, Counsel for applicant bank None for defendant

¶6

Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/ Hybrid Mode.

¶7

IA no.252912026 has been filed by the applicant bank for withdrawal of the present OA.

¶8

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank submitted that the settlement had taken place during the pendency of case, and therefore, the applicant bank is entitled for refund of the court fees paid by it, as per rules. She further submits that she wish to withdraw the present OA.

¶9

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank has atso requested for refund of the court 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 & Orc. The Honble Supreme Court has considered the matter and has held that:

¶10

Para 6- The refund of court fes is prmissible only it, the matter is referrd to Arbitratio4 Conciliation, judbial ettlement, including through Lok Adatat or mdiation for ettlement and the as is dsidd in terms of such a *ttlement and not otherwis.

¶11

Para 7- In the ase at hanQ the settlement in terms of whrth 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 *ttlement out of the court.

¶12

Para 8- Accordingly, we are of the opinbn that the petitioner is not entitld to refund of the court fes and the High Court has not ammittd any enor or illegality in refusing such a prayer."

¶13

In view of the above, it is clear that if the matter has been settled out of the murt without any reference ffom the court or Tribunal,

¶14

g"\

¶15

lEF

¶16

the court fees cannot be refunded. Therefore, the prayer of the applicant bank for refund of court fees is hereby declined.

¶17

In view of the above submission made by the Ld. Counsel for applicant bank, IA no.252912026 is allowed. ON74812023 is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶18

File be consigned to record.

¶19

9.A i (SUSHIL KiJ MAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶20

Yes Bank v. Vipin Rajan Tyagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank v. Vipin Rajan Tyagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases