After ₹26L DRAT Settlement, P&H HC Calls Borrower’s Bid To Adjust Earlier ₹5L Deposit Abuse Of Process, Imposes ₹20K Costs

The petitioner sought a writ under Article 226 to set aside the DRAT’s order dated 3 July 2026 insofar as it required adjustment of a ₹5.5 lakh pre-deposit, and requested that an earlier ₹5 lakh payment also be credited against the settlement amount

Before the DRAT, the respondent offered to settle the loan account for ₹26 lakh, payable within five months, and the petitioner’s counsel agreed that the ₹5.5 lakh pre-deposit could be remitted to the respondent. The DRAT recorded the settlement and directed payment of the remaining ₹20.5 lakh in instalments

The petitioner then filed this writ petition seeking adjustment of the earlier ₹5 lakh, which the respondent said had been deposited before the petitioner filed its securitisation application

The Court considered the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and the principle that the process of the Court should not be abused.

It assessed the petitioner’s claim against the terms of the settlement recorded by the DRAT, including the petitioner’s express agreement that the ₹5.5 lakh pre-deposit be remitted to the respondent. The judgment does not cite any statute or precedent as the basis for a broader rule

The DRAT order recorded a settlement for ₹26 lakh and expressly provided for remittance of the ₹5.5 lakh pre-deposit, with the balance payable in instalments. The petitioner had not asked the DRAT to adjust the separate earlier ₹5 lakh payment, although it was seeking that adjustment in the writ petition

The Court therefore treated the settlement as having been reached with the consent of both parties and held that the subsequent attempt to obtain an additional adjustment, not sought before the DRAT, amounted to abuse of process

It directed that, if the costs were not paid within that period, the matter be listed for compliance and further action, including recovery as arrears of land revenue, could be taken