Gaikwad J, Presiding Officer, allowed the bank's application for withdrawal of temporary stay on the grounds of out-of-court settlement. Prayer for refund of fees was rejected per Jage Ram; TA withdrawn.
Temporary stay (TA) dismissed as withdrawn; application (IA No.34131/2025) for withdrawal of stay allowed; prayer for refund of court fees declined.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.
E-
Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi
TAls6sl2022
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITEDVS SUNITABAMEL
2,3.0t.2026
Item no.25
Present: Mr. Shivam Gupta, Counsel for applicant bank None for defendans
Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/Hybridmode.
IA no,341312025 has been filed by the applicant bankfor withdrawal of thepresent TA.
The Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank submitted that inthe intervening time defendants herein have approached thebank and havepaid the full and finalpayment forsettlingtheir duesin their loan accounts maintained with the applicantbank.Since, the parties have settled amicably and the amount due tothe bank has beenpaid off, therefore, the applicant bankprays for withdrawal of thepresent T.A.
The Proxy Counsel for the applicant bank has also requested for refund of the couft fees. It is submitted that the rhatter has been settled and therefore, the courtfees maybe refunded asper provisions contained in the rules. In thisregard the Hontle Supreme Court haspassed the order inSLP(c) No(s).723/2023 dated 28.01.2025 titled as Jage Ram VsVed Kaur & Orc. The Hontle Supreme Court has considered the matter and has held that:
Para 6- The refund of court fes ispermissible only if, the matter is refened to Arbitration, hnciliation, judicial rexlemenl including through Lok Adalat or mediation for settlement and the ase is decided in terms of such a settlement and not otherwis.
lara7- In the case at hand, the settlementin terms of which the second appeal was dectded by the High Court is not on reference to any of the afuve authorities/fora rather it was an amicable sefflement out of the court.
Para 8- Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the '--.> retitioner is not entitld to refund of the couft frc and the High Court has not commiXd any eror or illegality in refusing such a prayer."
In view of the above, it is clear that if the matter has been settled out of the court without any reference-frgm the court or Tribunal,
5Ai
t
the court fees cannot be refunded. Therefore, theprayer of the hd-of court feeJis hdr€tifdecl
In view of the above submission made by the Ld. Counsel for applicant bank, IA no.341312025 is allowed. TN56512022is hismissed as withdrawn.
File be consigned to record room.
5-Ai (susHr L KprrAx. RAsroGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi
I
3 issues framed by the court
Whether court fees can be refunded upon withdrawal of a stay application after an out-of-court settlement.
Whether the Supreme Court's observation in Jage Ram applies to out-of-court settlements without tribunal reference.
Whether the temporary stay application (TA) should be withdrawn given the payment of full dues.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jage Ram Vs Ved Kaur & OrcReferred¶11
SLP(c) No.723/2023 dated 28.01.2025 titled as Jage Ram Vs Ved Kaur & Orc
1 provisions across 1 enactments
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED
SUNITA BAMEL
Vishnu Laxman Karamcheti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
