Partly allowed

State Bank of India v. Sushma Sharma

DRT30 Apr 2026TA/748/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for withdrawal of the award. It declined the prayer for refund of court fees, noting that the Supreme Court allows refunds only for settlements reached through specific authorities or mediators, not private out-of-court settlements.

What did the court decide?

IA no.1049/2026 allowed; application for refund of court fees declined; TA dismissed as withdrawn; original documents to be returned.

State Bank of India versus Sushma Sharma — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

€

¶2

Debts Recovely Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶3

TAl748l2024 STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs SUSHMA SHARMA

¶4

30.04.2026

¶5

Item no. 5

¶6

Present: Ms. Deeksha, prory counsel for applicant bank.

¶7

Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/ hybrid Mode.

¶8

lA no.1049 12026 has been filed by the applicant bank for withdrawal of the present TA.

¶9

The Ld. Prory counsel for the applicant bank submits that the matter has been settled between the parties. She further submits that she wish to withdraw the present TA. Ld. Proxy counsel for applicant bank prayed return the original documents.

¶10

The Ld. Proxy 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 provisions contained in the rules. In this regard the Honble Supreme Court has passed the order in SLP(c) No(s).72y2023 dated 28.01.2025 titled as Jage Ram Vs Ved Kaur & Ors. Thel';i' Honble Supreme Court has considered the matter and has held that:

¶11

Para 6- The refund of court fees is permissibie only ifi the matter is referred to Arbitration, Conciliation, judicial settlement, including through Lok Adalat or mediation for settlement and the care is decided in terms of such a settlement and not otherwire.

¶12

Para V In the case at hanQ the settlement in terms of which the second appeal was decided by the High Court is not on reference to any of the above authorities/fora rather it was an amiable settlement out of the court.

<r\ i

-,;-

] ", :

_1 '-

Para 8- Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to refund of the court fees and the High Court has not committed any eror or illegality in refusing such a prayer."

¶18

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

¶19

In view of amicable settlement, IA no.1049 12026 is allowed .TA74812024 is dismissed as withdrawn. Registry is directed to rcturn the original documents after keeping the ceftified copies on rccords. All the^pending IAs stand disposed of.

¶20

The date alrcady fixed on 02.07.2026 before this Tribunal stands cancelled.

¶21

File be consigned to record room.

¶22

-tJJ (susHrL KUMAR nnsroqj' PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-II, Delhi

¶23

State Bank of India v. Sushma Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sushma Sharma

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