Quashed

Yes Bank v. Sanjeev Kumar

DRT27 Aug 2026TA/2116/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Delhi quashed an interim order of appointment of advocate ad litem noting settlement, but declined the applicant bank's request for refund of court fees since the settlement was made out of court without reference to mandatory authorities or fora.

What did the court decide?

Interim order granted in TA no.27.08.2022 quashed and dismissed; IA no.243212026 allowed; refund of court fees declined as settlement was out of court.

Yes Bank versus Sanjeev Kumar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRT (2026)

¶1

Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶2

TAl2Lt6l2022 YES BANKVS SANJEEV KUMAR

¶3

27.08.2026

¶4

Item no.29

¶5

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

¶6

Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/ Hybrid Mode.

¶7

lA no.243212026 has been filed by the applicant bank for withdrawal of the present TA.

¶8

The Ld. Crunsel for the applicant bank submifted 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 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 court fees may be refunded as per provisions contained in the rules. In this regard the Honble Supreme Couft has passed the order in SLP(c) No(s).723/2023 dated 28.01.2025 titled as Jage Ram Vs Ved Kaur & Orc. The Hontle Supreme Court has considered the matter and has held that:

¶10

Para 6- The refund of court fes is permissible only it, the mafier is referrd to Arbitration, Conciliation, judicial rettlement, including through Lok Adalat or mdiation for sfflement and the ase is dridd in terms of such a settlement and not otherwise.

¶11

Para 7- In the ase at hanQ the sefilement in terms of which the wond appal was decided by the High Court is not on reference to any of the above authorities/fora rather it was an amiable *ttlement out of the court.

¶12

Para 8- Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the ptitioner is not entitld to refund of the coutt ftrs and the High Coutt has not committd any error 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 court without any referencefrom the court or Tribunal,

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

In view of the above submission made by the Ld. Counsel for applicant bank, IA no.243212026 is allowed. TN2ll6l2022 is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶17

File be consigned to record.

¶18

_--- \ CA

¶19

(SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶20

Yes Bank v. Sanjeev Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank v. Sanjeev Kumar

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