Dismissed

Raju Lal Saini v. Mentor Home Loans India Limited

DRT15 Dec 2022SA/447/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's suit for security. The court held that the account was legitimately declared NPA due to default since Feb 2019. The applicant's willingness to pay only Rs. 4-5 Lacs against the respondent's settlement offer of Rs. 12 Lacs precluded any compromise, rendering the suit devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

The Suit/Application was disposed of as it was devoid of merit.

Raju Lal Saini versus Mentor Home Loans India… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2022)

¶1

¶2

SA No. 447/2022

¶3

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR PRESIDING OFFICER: SH. VIVEK SAXENA

¶4

SA No.- 447/2022

¶5

Raju Lal Saini s/o Shri Nourang Lal Saini, R/o Plot No. 33, Adarsh Kacchi basti, Village Niwaru, District Jaipur-302012, Rajasthan presently residing at Plot No. 32, Adarsh Kacchi Basti, Village Niwaru, District Jaipur.

¶6

Mrs. Suman Devi w/o Shri Raju Lal Saini R/o Plot No. 33, Adarsh Kacchi basti, Village Niwaru, District Jaipur302012, Rajasthan presently residing at Plot No. 32, Adarsh Kacchi Basti, Village Niwaru, District Jaipur.

¶7

Mr. Sushil Kumar Saini s/o Shri Raju Lal Saini, R/o Plot No. 33, Adarsh Kacchi basti, Village Niwaru, District Jaipur-302012, Rajasthan presently residing at Plot No. 32, Adarsh Kacchi Basti, Village Niwaru, District Jaipur.

¶8

………Applicants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Mentor Home Loans India Litmited , Mentor House, Govind Marg, Sethi Colony, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302004 through its Authorised Officer.

¶11

..….. Respondents

¶12

Present:

¶13

Sh. Anil Mahala, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant

¶14

Sh. Alok Mathur, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI

(Final Order)

(15.12.2022)

This SA was filed on 22.07.2022, in the present matter vide order dated 27.07.2022 the prayer of interim relief was declined. SA was filed by the applicant after taking physical possession of the subject mortgaged property. Admittedly the applicant availed credit facilities of Rs. 6.30 Lac which was to be repaid in 84 EMIs for Rs. 11781/- at the fixed interest rate @ 14.33% per annum.

¶20

As admitted, Sanctioned approval letter was issued on 31.05.2016 and the said letter is at Annexure A/1. Mortgage of the said property is admitted in Para 5.2, it is admitted that out of Rs. 6.50 Lac the amount of Rs. 1.30 Lac was deducted towards the first loan default guarantee with interest meaning thereby if default is committed by the borrower the amount would be recovered after deducting the amount of Rs. 1.30 Lac and further rate of interest shall remain on 14.33% only.

¶21

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant argued that as per Annexure A/2 photocopy of passbook of the account of applicant no. 2 the amount of RS. 5.00 Lac was adjusted to the applicant and applicant was continuously repaying the loan till February 2019 but on account of COVID-19 his financial condition was not good, further amount was not deposited and account was classified as NPA on 10.01.2021.

¶22

In Para 5.6, it is submitted that in the light of Possession Notice dated 16.06.2022 Annexure A/3 physical possession of the subject mortgaged property was taken by the Respondent FI and the applicant filed an Application before

¶23

¶24

¶25

Permanent Lok Adalat on 22.06.2022, but Respondent FI took objection that the application filed by the applicant before Permanent Lok Adalat is not maintainable because they have already initiated actions as per the provisions of SARFAESI Act of 2002.

¶26

In Para 5.8, it is submitted that the Demand Notice was not served upon them, and the statement of account is having rate of interest @ 14% instead of 14.33% as mentioned in Saction Aproval letter.

¶27

It was also argued that he Respondent FI has raised Demand of very high amount against the loan amount of Rs. 5.00 Lac, applicant has already deposited an amount of Rs. 3,55,932/Accordingly Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that all the actions initiated by the Respondent FI are required to be quashed and set aside and SA is liable to be allowed.

¶28

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent field reply to SA along with Demand Notice and its publication in Newspaper at Annexure R/3

¶29

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent FI argued that the Demand Notice was duly served upon SA applicant and they failed to deposit the amount and whereas the Demand Notice was duly served upon them as per postal receipt and track report filed at page no. 22 on 31.05.2021.

¶30

Ld. Counsel further submitted that the amount was sanctioned at the interest of 14.33% and facility of First Loan Default Guarantee for an amount of Rs. 1.30 Lac was granted to SA applicant because credit facility was sanctioned for rate of interest @14% only if the amount was paid in 84 EMIs

¶31

¶32

¶33

regularly then the SA applicant was entitled to get the amount of Rs. 1.30 Lac back for 8% interest.

¶34

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent FI submitted that the SA applicant is now required to repay the entire amount as per agreed terms and conditions and the SA is required to be dismissed with cost.

¶35

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶36

During the course of arguments Ld. Counsel for the Respondent FI submitted that as on date an amount of Rs. 20.00 Lac approx is outstanding and the Respondent FI is ready to settle the account for an amount of Rs. 12.00 Lac.

¶37

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the SA applicant can settle the account for an amount of Rs. 4 to 5 Lac and not more than that.

¶38

It is admitted in Para 5.3 that EMI, of the credit facility which was sanctioned on 31.05.2016, was regular till February, 2019 and after that no EMI was deposited by the SA applicant. From the perusal of statement of account filed at Annexure R/2. It is also clear that only 2 EMI in May 2016 and July 2016 were regularly paid and EMI for the month of June, 2016 was not paid, later on EMI for the month of October 2016 was paid in the month of April 2017 and EMI of December 2016 and January 2017 was deposited after six month on 27.06.2017, similarly on 18.11.2017, EMI for the month of January 2017 to May 2017 was deposited.

¶39

From perusal of statement of account at Annexure R/2 it is clear that the applicant was highly irregular in timely repayment therefore as per agreed terms and conditions

¶40

¶41

¶42

applicant was duty bound to repay and to bear the late charges along with penal interest also.

¶43

Default is admitted since February 2019 therefore in my considered opinion the account was rightly declared as NPA and SA applicant failed to point out any illegality in the Demand Notice as well as other notices issued by the Respondent FI.

¶44

Considering the fact that as the Respondent FI is still ready and willing to settle the account for an amount of Rs. 12.00 Lac against the total outstanding amount of Rs. 20.00 Lac, meaning thereby they are ready to compromise for an amount of Rs. 8.00 Lac but the SA applicant is not ready for that amount as he is still ready to deposit only for an amount of Rs. 4 to 5 Lac.

¶45

Therefore it is clear that there is no scope of compromise also, Accordingly SA is being devoid of any merit is disposed of.

¶46

Copy of the order be given free to the concerned parties.

¶47

File be place before Registrar for compliance, after compliance file be consigned to record as per rules.

¶48

Vivek Saxena Presiding Officer DRT, Jaipur

¶49

Raju Lal Saini v. Mentor Home Loans India Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Lal Saini v. Mentor Home Loans India Limited

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

Similar cases

Punjab National Bank versus Mr Ashish Gupta

Indian Bank versus M/S Jaipur Automobiles

State Bank of India versus Guman Singh

State Bank of India versus Bank of Baroda

M S Deepak Enterprises versus Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank

Un Automobiles Private Limited versus Bank of Baroda