The Tribunal allowed withdrawal of the Transfer Application after the shareholder paid an OTS amount and received a No Dues Certificate. The prayer for refund of court fees was declined as the settlement was out-of-court.
IA no.258/2026 allowed; TA/1530/2023 dismissed as withdrawn. Refund of court fees declined.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi
TAlLs3Ol20.23
BANK OF BARODA Vs MR RAVI MISHRA AND OTHS
30.01.2026
Item no.52
Present: Mr. Ramesh Kumar Mahaliyan, Counsel for applicant bank Defendant no.2 is ex-parte datd 28.04.2025 None for defendant no.1
Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode.
IA no.258/2026 has been filed by the applicant bank for withdrawal of the present TA.
The Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank submitted that during the pendency of the present original application, the defendants had approached the applicant bank for an One Time SetUement ("OTS") for an amount of Rs.51,00,000/-, and the same has stand paid by the defendant. On receipt of the said entire OTS amount of Rs.51,00,000/- the applicant bank had issued a No Dues Certificate to the borrower, vide No Dues Certificate dated 26-L2-2024. A copy of No Dues Certificate dated 26-12- 2024 is annexed. It is humbly submitted that since the present matter now stands settled. It is humbly prayed to this Hon'ble Tribunal to allow the applicant bank to withdraw the present Transfer Application. Hence, the applicant bank wishes to withdraw the present TA.
The Ld. Counsel forthe applicant bank has also 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 Hontle Supreme Couft has passed the order in SLp(c) No(s).72j/2023 dated 28.01.2025 tittd as Jage Ram vs vd Kaur & Orc. The Honble Supreme Court has considered the matter and has held that:
Para 6- The refund of court fes is permissible only it the matter is refened to Arbitration, Conciliation, judicial *ttlement, including through Lok Adalat or mediation for settlement and the case is decrdd in terms of such a sefilement and not otherwis.
Para 7- In the case at hand, the seXlement in terms of whrth the econd appal was duided by the High Court is not on reference to apy pf the above ,)
I t I I
authorities/fora rather it was an amiable setttement out of the court
Para 8- Arcordingly, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitld to refund of the coutt ftrs and the High Court has not commiXd any error or illqality in refusing such a prayer."
In view of the above, it is clear that if the matter has been setfled 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 hereby declined.
In view of the above submission made by the Ld. Counsel for applicant bank, IA no.25812026 is allowed. TA/1530/2023 is dismissed as withdrawn.
File be consigned to record room.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal should allow withdrawal of the Transfer Application considering settlement.
Whether court fees are refundable for a settlement reached out of court without reference to the Tribunal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jage Ram vs vd Kaur & Orc.Referred¶10
SLp(c) No(s).72j/2023
BANK OF BARODA
MR RAVI MISHRA
SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
