Dismissed

Laxmi Rathore v. India Shelter Finance Corporation Ltd.

DRT14 Jun 2023SA/104/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application filed by a borrower claiming recoveries were challenged and relief sought against the respondent bank. The court observed the applicant took unauthorized physical possession of the mortgaged property on two occasions after the respondent obtained possession and concealed these incidents from the record.

What did the court decide?

The application stood dismissed as devoid of merit due to the applicant's illegal conduct and concealment of facts.

Laxmi Rathore versus India Shelter Finance Corporation Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

SA No. 104/2023

¶3

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

¶4

SA No. 104/2023

¶5

Laxmi Rathore W/o Shri Roopnarayana R/o Ladi Ji ki haveli, Ward No. 11, Kapren Dist – Bundi (Rajasthan) 323301

¶6

..Applicant

¶7

V/s.

¶8

India Shelter Finance Corporation Ltd. Having registered office at 6^th Floor Plot no. 15, Institutional Area, Sector 44, Gurugram

¶9

Respondent

¶10

Present:

¶11

Sh. Mohit Chaudhary, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant

¶12

Sh. Akshat Kulshreshtha, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent

¶13

(Final Order)

¶14

(14.06.2023)

¶15

This SA was filed on 08.02.2023 and in the SA availing credit facilities and mortgaged of the subject property is admitted.

¶16

The SA applicant claimed herself as illiterate lady. Physical possession of the subject mortgaged property was taken by the Respondent Bank and in Para 11 of the SA it is challenged that demand notice was never served upon the SA applicant.

¶17

¶18

¶19

Physical possession of the subject mortgaged property was taken on 28.12.2022, whereas this SA was filed on 06.02.2023, reply to SA was filed by the Respondent Bank on 28.04.2023 and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent FI, submitted that after taking physical possession of the subject mortgaged property, the SA applicant took unauthorized possession of the property by breaking locks and they informed this incident to local police authority and then on 29.12.2022, the SA applicant handed over possession of the subject mortgaged property to Authorized Officer of the Respondent FI but again she took unauthorized possession by breaking locks so put by Respondent FI, they again lodged a complaint on 13.01.2023 with local police authority and again on 17.01.2023, the SA applicant handed over possession of the subject mortgaged property in favour or Respondent FI.

¶20

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent FI argued and submitted that the conduct of the SA applicant being a borrower and defaulter is completely against the law because she took forcible possession of subject mortgaged property by breaking locks on two occasions and therefore the applicant is not entitled for any kind of relief.

¶21

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant challenged the outstanding amount, mentioned in demand notice and he submitted that an amount of Rs. 5,06,480/- was sanctioned , whereas principal outstanding amount is mentioned as Rs. 5,52,827/- due as on 31.07.2021, so he submitted that the principal outstanding amount can not be more than the amount so sanctioned.

¶22

To counter this objection Ld. Counsel for the Respondent FI submitted that as a benefit of moratorium was granted to SA applicant so amount of principal amount, out of EMI pending for the period of moratorium was added into the amount of principal amount and therefore there is nothing illegal in the amount as claimed by them in the demand notice.

¶23

¶24

¶25

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶26

If the conduct of SA applicant is to be seen, then it is sufficient to hold that she has completely acted against the law, she took two times physical possession of the subject mortgaged property by breaking locks, so put by the Respondent FI as FI was legally entitled to take physical possession of the subject mortgaged property.

¶27

Physical possession was taken by the Respondent FI on 28.12.2022 as mentioned in Para 8 and copy of inventory showing proceeding of physical possession on 28.12.2022 are filed on record at Annexure R/2 with the reply.

¶28

The SA applicant failed to inform the fact that she took forcible possession of the subject mortgaged property with the help of her other family members and handed over back the possession on 29.12.2022, given in writing page no. 27 because this fact was required to be informed by SA applicant while filing this SA on 06.02.2023 but this fact was completely concealed by the SA applicant.

¶29

Again the possession was illegally taken by the SA applicant, the Respondent FI filed a complaint on 13.01.2023 and applicant again handed over the same, on 17.05.2023 this incident also took place before filing of this SA, applicant failed to file these two incidents on record.

¶30

The conduct of SA applicant is completely illegal and misleading. The act of taking forcible possession of the subject mortgaged property by SA applicant, is sufficient to hold that the applicant is not entitled to get any kind of relief.

¶31

Therefore SA being devoid of any merit stands disposed of as dismissed.

¶32

Vivek Saxena Presiding Officer DRT, Jaipur

¶33

Laxmi Rathore v. India Shelter Finance Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Rathore v. India Shelter Finance Corporation 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

Similar cases

Sandeep Jhanwar versus Reliagre Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited

Govind Hari Dixit versus Bank of India

Hdfc Bank versus Harphool Yadav

State Bank of India versus Sh Bhagirath Ram

Icici Bank Limited versus Nishan Singh

Manbahr Kanwar versus Vastu Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.