Dismissed

Raju Sharma v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

DRAT19 Oct 2022MISC APPEAL/236/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal disposed of an appeal where the appellant sought condonation of delay in depositing Rs. 7 lakhs as per a previous order directing restraint on property possession. The court dismissed the appeal as the respondent had no objection and ordered the appellant to continue paying EMIs regularly.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is directed to pay the EMIs regularly. The order restraining the respondent from taking possession is maintained subject to future compliance.

Raju Sharma versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI

¶2

Misc. Appeal No.236/2022 Arising out of S.A.No.454/2022 (DRT-I, Delhi)

¶3

Raju Sharma & Ors. Vs Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd.

¶4

19.10.2022 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Sethi

¶5

Present: Mr. Rahul Shrivastav, Ld. Counsel for appellant.

¶6

Mr. Vivek Singh, Ld. Counsel for respondent FI.

¶7

This matter has been taken up by me through Video Conferencing.

¶8

This is an appeal filed against the impugned order dated 21.09.2022 which runs as follows:-

¶9

“In the present matter, the S. applicant has come forward to deposit the amount of Rs.7.00 lakhs in the aforesaid manner. Keeping in view of the past/present Covid-19 situation in the country including Delhi, it would not be appropriate to dispossess the S. applicant from the property in question. Thus, I hereby restrained the respondent FI/ court receiver from taking physical possession of the property in question till the next date of hearing subject to deposit by the S. applicant with the respondent FI a sum of Rs.7.00 lacs 24.09.2022 (before 1.30 p.m.) and the said amount shall be adjusted towards the installment due and payable by the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant shall deposit the regular installments as per schedule and also deposit the court receiver’s and legal charges within two months.

¶10

It is made clear that in case of default on the part of the S. applicant in depositing the aforesaid directed amount with the respondent FI, the respondent FI through the same court receiver shall be at liberty to take physical possession of the property in question without issuing any further notice.

¶11

List this case on 02.11.2022 before the Ld. Registrar for completion of pleadings.”

¶12

(Emphasis supplied)

¶13

The Ld. Counsel for appellant has submitted that vide impugned order dated 21.09.2022 he was directed to deposit Rs.7.00 lacs by 24.09.2022, however, he could make the payment after 05 days thereafter. He, therefore, seeks condonation of delay in depositing the said amount late by 05 days.

¶14

The Ld. Counsel for respondent FI has no objection to the same. In view of the above, the appeal stands disposed of. Let the appellant keep paying the EMI regularly.

¶15

File be consigned to record.

¶16

(CHAIRPERSON)

¶17

Raju Sharma v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Sharma v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dcb Bank Limited versus Subodh Sharma

Yuvraj Singh and Anr. versus Axis Bank and Anr.

Alok Raghuvanshi and Anr. versus Bajaj Finance Limited and Ors.

Corporation Bank and Anr. versus Ms Ambika Timber Trade Pvt. Ltd. & Others

Mrs Kavita Sethi and Ors. versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd. and Ors.

Bank of Baroda versus Dileep Kumar