The Debts Recovery Tribunal quashed a Demand Notice issued by Aavas Financiers Ltd. as it claimed an illegal principal amount exceeding the sanctioned limit, failing to deduct amounts received or justify additional charges.
Demand Notice dated 09.06.2022 and all further proceedings initiated based on said notice were quashed and set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
SA No. 522/2022
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR PRESIDING OFFICER: SH. VIVEK SAXENA
SA No. 522/2022
Soma Devi W/o Mr. Daya Ram Meena, Rayanwala Thall, Andhi, S.O. Jamvaramgarh, Jaipur.
………Applicant
Versus
Aavas Financiers Ltd. At 201-202, 2nd Floor, Southend Square, Mansarovar Industrial Area, Jaipur-302020 Through Authorised Officer
..….. Respondent
Present:
Sh. Vishwas Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Sh. Sharad Joshi, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI
(Final Order)
(15.05.2023)
This SA was filed on 26.08.2022 and as rightly pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the Respondent FI, no amount deposited by SA applicant.
Vide order dated 02.09.2022 Respondent FI, was directed to file reply and Respondent FI, was directed to give four weeks advance notice, if they want to take physical possession of the subject mortgaged property.
Reply to the SA was filed and no rejoinder to reply was filed.
CM
2
Availing two credit facilities is admitted and issuance of Demand Notice dated 09.06.2022 was admitted. The applicant challenged the Demand Notice dated 09.06.2022 (Annexure A/1) mainly on the ground that the Demand raised in the said Demand notice, is not correct. The same is illegal and so they forwarded objection to Demand Notice, copy of which is at Annexure A/2.
Ld. Counsel for the Applicant argued that the amount as claimed in both the accounts is illegal in the light of statement of account filed at Annexure A/4 and so Demand Notice dated 09.06.2022, is required to be quashed and set aside.
Ld. Counsel argued that as the Demand Notice dated 09.06.2022 is illegal, so further all the actions, initiated by them are required to be quashed and set aside.
Ld. Counsel for the Respondent FI, while filing reply, objected each and every ground taken by the SA applicant and Ld. Counsel argued that Demand Notice, was dully served upon the SA applicants, in the light of postal receipts and track report filed at Annexure R/3, symbolic possession, was taken on 18.08.2022 in the light of possession notice at Annexure R/4, Pre possession notice was issued on 04.10.2022 and finally order u/s 14 of the Act of 2002, was obtained on 31.08.2022. All the above said documents are filed on record.
Ld. Counsel for the Respondent FI argued that two credit facilities for an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- and Rs. 2,48,486/were sanctioned and the amount as claimed against principal outstanding as shown for Rs. 6,56,813/- and Rs. 2,41,551/in both the accounts and the same is on account of moratorium granted by the Respondent FI, so there is nothing illegal in the Demand, so raised in the Demand Notice.
As this issue is required to be decided, so perused the Statement of account of both the account carefully.
As per Statement of account, so filed at Annexure R/2 following is the figures:-
CM
3
| A/c No. 170044965 | A/c No. 190081070 | |
|---|---|---|
| Amount sanctioned |
Rs. 7,00,000/- | Rs. 2,48,486/- |
| Amount Received as Principal |
Rs. 92,089/- | Rs. 26,129/- |
| Total | Rs. 6,08,011/- | Rs. 2,22,357/- |
| Amount as principal claimed |
Rs. 6,94,615/- | Rs. 2,53,330/- |
| in the demand notice |
Perused the Demand Notice dated 09.06.2022 and found that the amount as claimed as Principal amount in IInd account, is Rs. 2,53,330/- whereas, an amount of Rs. 2,48,486/- was sanctioned, so it is rightly pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the Applicant that amount, shown as due principal amount for Rs. 2,53,330/- is more than the amount sanctioned.
The amount in Demand Notice, is claimed, outstanding as on 06.06.2022 but no such amount either as principal due or finally as outstanding is tallying as on 06.06.2022 or on 09.06.2022, in the statement of account, so filed at Annexure R/2.
Further if the Statement of account filed at Annexure R/2, is considered, it is clear from the said statement that against the amount so sanctioned for Rs. 2,48,486/- an amount of Rs. 26,129/was received against the principal amount so the amount should have been reduced to Rs. 2,22,357/- but the same is Rs. 2,53,330/is in fact illegal, arbitrarily and beyond imagination. Amount as Principal due, can be justified as the Respondent FI has added charges but the Statement of account of second account no. 190081070, do not reflects such charges and therefore, I find myself in agreement with the objections taken by Ld. Counsel for the Applicant, that the Demand Notice dated 09.06.2022, do not have
CM
4
legitimate and legal demand and so Demand Notice dated 09.06.2022, stands quashed and set aside.
Accordingly all further proceedings taken by the Respondent FI, in the light of said Demand Notice dated 09.06.2022 also stands quashed and set aside.
With these observations SA stands disposed of as allowed with no cost. All pending IA’s also stands disposed of as infractuous.
Vivek Saxena Presiding Officer DRT, Jaipur
CM
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Demand Notice dated 09.06.2022 was legitimate given the discrepancy between the sanctioned loan amount and the claimed principal outstanding.
Whether accrued interest and charges were appropriately reflected in the Statement of Account to justify the inflated claim of Rs. 2,53,330/-.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Soma Devi W/o Mr. Daya Ram Meena
Aavas Financiers Ltd.
Vivek Saxena
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
