$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11412/2017 SYNDICATE BANK .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Puneet Tanjea, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

Anil Kumar, Mr.Manmohan Singh Narula, Mr. Amit Yadav, Advs.

versus PAWAN KUMAR .....Respondent Through: Ms. Aayushi Jain, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

O R D E R

% 09.02.2026 CM APPL. 20519/2024

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking, inter alia, the following prayer;

“i. Direct the Registry to refund the amount of Rs.8,64,112.25/- along with accrued interest as deposited by the petitioner bank keeping in view the setting aside of the impugned award dated 14.06.2017 passed by Ld. CGIT..”

2. It is stated that the aforesaid amount was deposited with the Registrar General of this Court on 15^th January, 2018 vide Demand Draft No. 980330 dated 10^th January, 2018. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that W.P.(C) No. 11412/2017 has already been disposed of in favour of the Petitioner vide order dated 08^th January, 2024 and, therefore, the amount deposited with the Registry is liable to be refunded.

3. It is further noted that the Respondent has preferred LPA No. 100/2024, which is presently pending before the Division Bench of this Court. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that an objection to the withdrawal of the said amount was raised before the Division Bench by filing CM APPL. 79424/2025. However, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 17th December, 2025, wherein the Division Bench observed that it is for the learned Single Judge to decide the application seeking refund of the deposited amount. The findings are reproduced below:

“…….

4. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, we are of the view that the application is absolutely misconceived. In a Letters Patent jurisdiction, the Division Bench cannot stay the proceedings before learned Single Judge. It is the discretion of learned Single Judge to allow or reject the application filed by the respondent.

5. The appellant's contention that the application in question, being CM No. 20519/2024, has been malafidely filed by the respondent, cannot be a reason to stay the proceedings before learned Single Judge.

6. While hearing an appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we cannot venture to stay the proceedings, (if any), taken by learned Single Judge) as the same cannot be alleged to be without jurisdiction or malafide. As a limited jurisdiction under Clause 10 of the LPA, we can examine only the correctness and propriety of the order, which has been passed by learned Single Judge.

6. The application is, therefore, dismissed.”

4. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that there is no impediment in allowing the present application. The amount deposited with the Registry constitutes public money and the Petitioner is a nationalised bank. It cannot be presumed that in the event the pending proceedings are ultimately decided in favour of the Respondent/workman, the Petitioner would not satisfy the monetary claim in accordance with law.

5. In view thereof and considering that the writ petition already stands disposed of, the present application is allowed.

6. The Registry is directed to refund an amount of Rs.8,64,112.25/- along with accrued interest, if any, to the Petitioner.

SHAIL JAIN, J FEBRUARY 9, 2026 Pallavi/DG