Dismissed

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Urvashi Goswami & Ors.

DRT27 Apr 2026TA/1684/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Reconstruction Tribunal-I, Delhi allowed the applicant bank's application to withdraw the present second appeal as the matter was settled via substantial payment. The court declined the prayer for refund of court fees, relying on Supreme Court precedent that such refunds are permissible only if settlement arises from court-referred arbitration/conciliation/mediation.

What did the court decide?

Application for withdrawal of TA allowed; prayer for refund of court fees declined; TA dismissed as withdrawn.

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Urvashi Goswami & Ors. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DebB Recovely Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶2

TA/168412023

¶3

STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs MRS. URVASHI GOSWAMI & oRs.

¶4

27.04.2026 Item no.65

¶5

Present: Mr. RK Sinha, Counsel for applicant bank None for defendants

¶6

Matter is taken through Video Conferencingl Hybrid Mode.

¶7

fA no.5l28l2026 has been filed by the applicant bank for withdrawal of the^present TA.

¶8

The Ld. C.ounsel for the applicant bank submitted that^the applicant bank wants to inform this Tribunal that the^matterhas already been settled between the^parties as^substantial outstanding amounts^paid, therefore, the applicant bank^does not wish to^pursue the^{present proceedings} any fufther against the defendants in the^present case. Now the applicant^{bank seeks} the kind^permission of this Hon'ble Tribunal to^withdrawthe present application pending before this Tribunal for adjudication. Hence, the applicant bank wishes to withdraw the^{present TA.}

¶9

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank^has also^requested for refund of the court fees. It is submitted that^{the matter} has been settled and therefore, the couft^{fees may be refunded} as per^provisions contained in the rules. In this^{regard the} Hontle Supreme Court has^passed the order in^SLP(c) No(s).723/2023 datd 28.01.2025 titled as Jage^{Ram Vs Ved} Kaur & Orc. The Hontle Supreme Couft has^{considered the} matter and has held that:

¶10

Para 6- The refund of court fes is^permissible only ii the matter is referd to Arbitration, Conciliation, judicial *ttlement, including through Lok Adalat or mediation for rettlement and the ase is decidd in terms of such a settlement and not otherwis.

¶11

Para 7- In the ase at hanQ the settlement in terms of which the scond appeal was decided by^{the High} Court is not on reference to any of the above authorities/fora rather it was an amicable sttlement out of the court.

¶12

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

¶13

<,\

¶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 couft fees cannot be refunded. Therefore, the^prayer of^the applicant bank for refund of court^{fees is hereby declined.}

¶15

In view of the above submission made by the Ld. Counsel^for applicant bank, IA no.512812026 is allowed.^{TA/168412023 is} dismissed as withdrawn.

¶16

File be consigned to record room.

¶17

{)\ (susHIL Kl.rIvlAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶18

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Urvashi Goswami & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Urvashi Goswami & 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