The respondents, which included Central government authorities and the DRT-II at Mumbai, countered that the bank’s plea should be dismissed because it had not demonstrated any injustice done to it.
They added that if there is a settlement between the borrower and the bank, all dues, including legal expenses and court fees incurred by the bank, can be part of such settlement.
They further argued that in order to prevent the bank from receiving dual benefits from both the borrower and the Tribunal, Rule 5(1) of the Rules requires the filing of a joint application by the applicant and the defendant in order to obtain a court fee refund.
Resultantly, they contended that the provision protects the interests of both the bank and the borrower. They further claimed that refunding court fees to the petitioner-bank may lead to unjust enrichment.
Source: Barandbench
