Allowed

Corporation Bank v. Lalit Tyagi and Ors.

DRT25 May 2026TA/1654/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application to withdraw a stay due to an amicable settlement where the respondent paid the due amount. The court declined the prayer for refund of court fees as the settlement was out of court, dismissing the stay petition.

What did the court decide?

Stay application dismissed as withdrawn; IA 1172/2026 allowed; refund of court fees declined; original documents to be returned.

Corporation Bank versus Lalit Tyagi and Ors. — DRT (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Debts Recovera Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶2

TAlt6s4l2022

¶3

CORPORATION BANK Vs LALIT TYAGI AND ORS

¶4

25.05.2026

¶5

Item no. 69

¶6

Present: Mr. Raman Kumar Singh, counsel for applicant bank. None for defendants.

¶7

Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/ hybrid Mode.

¶8

IA no.117212026 has been filed by the applicant bank for withdrawal of the present TA.

¶9

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank submits that in terms of the settlement the Respondent no.1 has paid a sum.l<of Rs.45,81,552/- (including interest till date) as due on 23.04.2026 in the subject account. He fufther submits that he wishes to withdraw the present TA and return of original documents.

¶10

. or'

¶11

The Ld. Counsel of the 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 ' :l .): provisions contained in the rules. In this regard the Hon'blq Supreme Cou( has^passed the order in SLP(c) No(s).78/m23 datd 28.01.2025 titld as Jage Ram Vs Ved Kaur a Orc. t\g Honble Supreme Court has considered the matter and has held that:

¶12

Para 6- The refund of court fes is prmisible only if .. . the matter is referrd to Arbitration, Concitiatio4^o' judicial settlement, including through Lok Adalat s7 ":')!i mediatiort for settlement and the cas is decidd in :.;-;1; terms of such a ettlement and not otherwi*.

¶13

:t,i,j,: Para 7- In the cas at han4 the settlement in terms of^.'..111 ; which the srcond appeal was dsidd by the High I iit,: Court is not on reference to any_ gI ffiu above a lL:l,li

¶14

authorities/fora rather it was an amicable settlement out of the court.

¶15

Para 8- Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is notentltled to refund of the court fes and the High Couft has not committed any error or illegality in refusing such a prayer."

¶16

In view of the above, it is clear that if the matter has been settled out of the court without any reference from the couft or Tribunal, the court fees cannot be refunded. Therefore, the prayer of the applicant FI for refund of court fees is hereby declined.

¶17

In view of amicable settlement, IA no.117212026 is allowed. TA L65412O22 is dismissed as withdrawn. Registry is directed to t€turn the original documents after keeping the certified copies on lecords. All the^pending IAs . r-lI stand disposed of. oi.

¶18

i '( i:

¶19

File be consigned to record room.

¶20

C'f i:; (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER; DRT-II, Dethi : L.:,;

Corporation Bank v. Lalit Tyagi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Corporation Bank v. Lalit Tyagi 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