Disposed

Nagaur Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. v. Hdfc Bank

DRT11 Jul 2023MA/27/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a miscellaneous application under the SAMA Act, the applicant sought directions to the respondent bank to rectify their CIBIL rating by updating the account status from 'settled' to 'closed'. The court observed that the entire deposited settled amount was paid and directed the bank to update the status to closed.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent bank to update the account status to 'closed' so that CIBIL may take steps to update the applicant's rating.

Nagaur Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. versus Hdfc Bank — Consumer Protection | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal- Jaipur

¶3

Item no.

¶4

Case No. MA 27/2023

¶5

¶6

SA 104/2019

¶7

NAGAUR AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD VS HDFC BANK

¶8

Date: 11.07.2023

¶9

Present:

¶10

Sh. Tapendra Kumar Yadav, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Ms. Praneeta Agarwal, Proxy Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI

¶11

This Miscellaneous Application was filed by the applicant on 13.09.2022 in SA No. 104/2019 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.07.2019 passed by this Tribunal on account of settlement arrived between the parties and it was stated by both the Ld. Counsels that nothing remains to recover from the applicant, so the SA was disposed of as infractuous.

¶12

This Miscellaneous Application was filed by the applicant with a prayer to issue directions to Respondent Bank to take necessary steps to clear the CIBIL rating of the applicants because as per CIBIL Rating dated 07.02.2023, the account is showing as settled and the score is 678. The copy of CIBIL rating was filed by the applicant on 16.02.2023 vide Dy. No. 1867.

¶13

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that in fact entire amount as demanded by the Respondent Bank stands deposited in the light of settlement letter dated 02.02.2017

¶14

¶15

¶16

(Annexure 1) issued by the Respondent Bank and amount to be deposited by the SA applicant stands deposited.

¶17

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant also submitted that there was no settlement, because the amount as claimed by the Respondent Bank was deposited, therefore the account of the applicant was closed and so the Respondent Bank was required to upload the information of parties of CIBIL Rating as closed and not settled, on account of this said status the CIBIL Rating of applicant is no good and they are facing problems in getting further credit facility.

¶18

Finally Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Respondent Bank may be directed to get the correct status reflected for the parties of CIBIL Rating as early as possible.

¶19

While filing reply to this Miscellaneous Application, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank strongly objected and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank submitted that the reversal of interest entries were due to the difference because as a result of working of the system and nothing else, therefore the Respondent Bank acted bonafidely by way of reversing the entries because the Bank being a secured creditor was interested in recovery of a legitimate due amount.

¶20

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank also submitted that as the settlement was arrived between the parties so they have duly uploaded the said status and it is an independent agency which is maintaining the record of all the Pan Card holders and they have nothing to do with the said Rating.

¶21

Finally Ld. Counsel for the Respondent bank opposed the prayer of MA applicant.

¶22

¶23

¶24

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶25

From the documents placed on record it is clear that as of now account is closed and from the perusal of letter dated 24.04.2019 filed by the Respondent Bank which is minutes of meeting and repayment schedule agreed with the applicant firm, it is clear that the principle outstanding amount was Rs. 11.34 Crore and an amount of Rs. 2.09 Crore was due against charges @12.5%.

¶26

SARFAESI proceedings were initiated, DM order was obtained but as the settlement was arrived and after discussions and deliberations, the borrower agreed to settle the above account for total amount of Rs. 12.50 Crore which stands now deposited.

¶27

There is a issue of interest, whereas the SA applicant claims that the entire outstanding amount of Rs. 11.34 Crore stands deposited along with required interest.

¶28

In my considered opinion the applicant is not required to suffer any more on account of any kind of reversal entry of interest and as of now entire amount stands deposited, in the light of settlement letter dated 02.02.2017. Sufficient time has already been passed and so the respondent bank is directed to update the status of account as closed, so that CIBIL may take appropriate steps to update the status of applicant.

¶29

Accordingly this MA stands disposed of with no cost.

¶30

Vivek Saxena Presiding Officer DRT, Jaipur

¶31

Nagaur Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagaur Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M S Dsr Infra versus Punjab National Bank

M S Dsr Infra versus Punjab National Bank

Om Prakash Kumawat versus Hero Housing Finance Ltd.

Vijendra and Anr. versus India Shelter Finance Corporation Limited

Transons Overseas India Pvt. Limited versus Punjab National Bank

Ashok Kumar Shah versus Mentor Home Loan India Private Limited