Dismissed

Shri Kailash Chandra Charan v. Laxmi India Finleasecap Private Limited

DRT16 Oct 2023SA/629/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur dismissed an application for condonation of delay filed under the Limitation Act. The court found the delay intentional and the applicant's claims regarding address change and payment deposits to be misleading and unsupported by evidence.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for condonation of delay dismissed; Special Application disposed of as dismissed.

Shri Kailash Chandra Charan versus Laxmi India Finleasecap Private Limited — DRT (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

Item No.

Case No. SA/629/2023

KAILASH CHANDRA CHARAN VS. LAXMI INDIA FINLEASE CAP

¶6

Date: 16.10.2023

¶7

Present:

¶8

Shri Ramnaresh Vijay , Counsel for the applicant

¶9

Shri Pramod Kumar, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI

¶10

Order on Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act:-

¶11

This SA was filed on 30.08.2023 with an application for condonation of delay.

¶12

It is claimed that one police person namely Mr. Kailash Meena (Mob. No. 9413044238) contacted the applicant over phone and informed him about order dated 21.04.2023, passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, the applicant who was not residing at the giving address contacted to a counsel on 25.08.2023, obtained certified copy of order dated 21.04.20253 along with all the enclosures to it and filed this SA on 30.08.023.

¶13

Ld. Counsel for the SA applicant argued that the SA applicant is not residing at the address given in the loan documents. No notice under the provisions of SARFAESI Act of 2002, was served upon him, so applicant was not having any knowledge about the actions initiated by respondent FI, including ex-parte order under Section 14 of the Act dated 21.04.2023 and so delay is not intentional, it is bona fide and is required to be condoned as the applicant is having a strong case in his favour.

¶14

Ld. Counsel for the respondent FI strongly objected the prayer of SA applicant on the grounds as mentioned in the reply and argued that the SA is required to be dismissed being badly time barred.

¶15

¶16

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶17

¶18

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶19

As per Demand Notice address of SA applicant is same as mentioned in SA, but SA applicant claimed that he is residing at other (present) address, but since when, is no where mentioned.

¶20

Page no. 97 and 98 of the SA are Statement f Account filed by the Respondent FI at the time of Application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, and Annexure-2 are copies of receipts of amount of Rs. 105660/- deposited by SA applicant. As per said statement of account, since 1^st EMI to till 24.02.2022 against the pending 21 EMIs, i.e. after giving benefit moratorium of 6 EMIs only an amount of Rs. 239480/was deposited and if amount of 21 EMIs @25660/- is calculated, it comes to Rs. 538860/- in total, but only an amount of Rs. 345140/only was deposited.

¶21

Now the contents of Para5.1 of the SA is to be seen where SA applicants claims to have deposited an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/(approx.), but in the light of evidence, so available on record, it is not more than Rs. 350000/-.

¶22

It is also a fact that the SA applicant got benefit of credit of Rs. 5195/as ex gratia on account of COVID-19 and so it is clear that the SA applicant got complete benefit of COVID-19.

¶23

Amount of EMI was Rs. 25660/-, but only three EMI of the same amount was deposited IV EMI was paid for Rs. 25000/- and after that not even a single EMI was paid in full and even sometime amount of Rs. 7500/- or Rs. 8,000/- or 7 EMIs Rs. 10000/- only were paid against the amount of EMI Rs. 25660/- and so it is clear that it was well within the knowledge of SA applicant that he was not paying amount of EMI in full and there was a continuous default.

¶24

So, claim of deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- is a misleading fact.

¶25

Proof of present address, intimation given to respondent FI to this effect is not filed on record and now to claim that Demand Notice was not served upon the SA applicant, is not liable to be accepted because,

¶26

¶27

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶28

¶29

change of address can be intentional in order to avoid service of notices to be issued by the Respondent FI, as the default was very well within the knowledge of SA applicant.

¶30

Therefore, the delay is intentional, no regular EMI was deposited and plea taken by SA applicant, as discussed hereinabove are misleading so the prayer for codonation of delay is dismissed and so also the SA being devoid of any merit also stands disposed of as dismissed.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

(VIVEK SAXENA) Presiding Officer

¶34

DRT, Jaipur

¶35

Shri Kailash Chandra Charan v. Laxmi India Finleasecap Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Kailash Chandra Charan v. Laxmi India Finleasecap Private 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

M S Balaji Ply Products Pvt. Ltd. versus Hdb Financial Services Limited

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank versus Babu Lal

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank versus Radha Ram Alias Radhe Shaym

Pramod Mishra versus Supreme Housing Finance Limited

M S Rani versus Namdev Finvest Private Limited

Surendra Agarwal versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited