Dismissed

Bahar Hotel v. Shriram City Union Finance Limited

DRT15 Nov 2023SA/251/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal at Aurangabad examined a Securitisation Application where the applicant challenged unreasonable interest and charges. The court dismissed the application but adjusted the applicant's deposited sum against book liability and allowed parallel arbitration proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application stands dismissed; Rs. 5 lac deposited by applicant adjusted in book liability.

Bahar Hotel versus Shriram City Union Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD (BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶2

ORDER SHEET

¶3

1 S	5.11.2 r. No.	023 56 SA No.251/2023
Classifi cation	No. of Exh.
		SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.251/2023 Bahar Hotel ..Applicant Versus Shriram City Union Finance Limited ..Respondent Mr. Amit Mukhedkar - Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V.Y.Bhide - Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 & 2. The matter is taken through Video Conference. 1. The bank has filed reply to the Securitisation Application. The main contention of applicant is that the Bank had levied unreasonable interest up to 22%. The learned counsel for the applicant also pointed out that the bank has charged the cheque bouncing charged of Rs. 34,000/- and legal fees of Rs. 1 lac which according to him is unreasonable. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant also cited the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of_Sunil_ _Kumar Vs Punjab National Bank_and submitted that the bank cannot charge unreasonable interest and other charges in excess. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the
		respondent has also filed arbitration proceeding and both the proceedings are going parallel.
		4. These two remedies are simultaneously available to the respondent bank and they can continue with the both. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the pronote filed by him at page no. 89 shows that the documents are filled up documents. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that half of the document is printed and half are filled by hand and the unreasonable interest of 22% has been filed up which was never agreed. 6. It is aprintedpronote. Definitelythe details have to be filled by

¶4

[APK] (SA No.251/2023) Page 1 of 2

¶5

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶6

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶7

ORDER SHEET

¶8

hand. There is no ambiguity in the same. So far as the unreasonable interest at the rate of 22% is concerned, a straight question was put to him whether after availing the loan in February, 2018 the applicant paid any instalment. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant submits that the applicant has already paid Rs. 11,00,000/-.

¶9

This shows that by his conduct also the applicant has admitted the said rate of interest as a contract between the parties. So far as the cheque bouncing charges of Rs. 34,000/- and Rs.1 lac legal charges are concerned; the respondent shall not be claiming for the same and they can continue with the arbitration and also Securitisation proceeding.

¶10

In view of the above, I pass the following order through video conferencing:

¶11

ORDER

¶12

A. The Securitisation Application No.251/2023 stands dismissed with no orders as to costs.

¶13

B. An amount of Rs. 5 lac deposited by the applicant shall be adjusted in the book liability.

¶14

C. All pending IA in the proceeding, if any are disposed of accordingly.

¶15

D. Consign the file to the Record Room and orders be uploaded on official web-site.

¶16

E. In the meantime, if the applicant wants to settle the matter he can approach the respondent, which the learned counsel for the respondent submits that they will consider the proposal of the applicant as per their own policy. (Vimal Gupta)

¶17

Presiding Officer

¶18

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶19

[APK] (SA No.251/2023) Page 2 of 2

Bahar Hotel v. Shriram City Union Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bahar Hotel v. Shriram City Union Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indu Publication versus Asrec India Limited

Raghoji Vishvnath Pundge versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

Mr Ashok Bhagwat Ingole versus Poornawadi Nagrik Sahakari Bank

Renuka Prakash Kore versus Bank of Maharashtra

Union Bank of India versus Rekha

Union Bank of India versus M/S Vishal Traders