Dismissed

Pramod Mishra v. Supreme Housing Finance Limited

DRT16 Oct 2023SA/73/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Settlement Appeal, the applicant challenged the NPA declaration, demand notice, and Recovery Certificate obtained by the financial institution. The Tribunal examined payment records, rejected claims of illegality regarding NPA status and the recovery order, and dismissed the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Pramod Mishra versus Supreme Housing Finance Limited — Cheque Dishonour | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

SA No. 73/2023

¶3

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

¶4

SA No.- 73/2023

¶5

Pramod Mishra S/o Shri Mahesh Mishra , Aged 45 years, R/o Plot No. 17-A, Shankar Vatika, Agra Road, Jaipur(Raj.)

¶6

Smt. Meena Devi Mishra W/o Pramod Mishra , Aged 43 years, R/o Plot No. 17-A, Shankar Vatika, Agra Road, Jaipur(Raj.)

¶7

... Applicants

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Supreme Housing Finance Limited , 307 Third Floor, Vijay City Point, Ahinsa Circle, Subhash Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302001, Through Its Authorised Officer.

¶10

Supreme Housing Finance Limited, Regd, Officer At 2^nd Floor, Harsha Bhawan, 13/29, E-Block, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Through Its Authorised Officer.

¶11

….Respondents

¶12

Present:

¶13

Sh. Ashish Tiwari, Ld. Counsels for the Applicant

¶14

Sh. Akshat Kulshrestha, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent FI

¶15

(Final Order)

¶16

(16.10.2023)

¶17

This SA was filed by the SA applicant on 10.01.2023. Reply to SA was filed on 06.05.2023.

¶18

Vide order dated 03.04.2023, SA applicant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 01.00 Lac which stands deposited and vide order dated 18.04.2023, Respondent FI was directed to give four weeks advance notice, if they want to take physical possession of the subject mortgaged property.

¶19

¶20

¶21

An IA no. 1171/2023 was filed on 08.06.2023 by SA applicant with the prayer that the Respondent FI may be directed to give an opportunity to SA applicant to deposit the remaining amount in three equal installments or to get the account regularized.

¶22

Reply to said interim application was filed by the Respondent FI.

¶23

As per facts of the case, the SA applicant Mr. Pramod Kumar Mishra, his wife Mrs. Meena Devi Mishra, his brother Mr. Dharmendra and one more Mr. Trilok Sain obtained credit facility, the respondents after execution of two loan agreement, sanctioned two loan facilities on 16.12.2017 and on 18.01.2018 and the property is situated at plot no. 17 A Shankar Vatika, Agra Road, Jaipur was mortgaged.

¶24

The account was declared as NPA on 30.04.3023 and therefore the demand notice was issued on 11.11.2021, copy of which is filed at Annexure/R/1.

¶25

As the SA applicant failed to deposit the amount as claimed in demand notice within 60 days time and thereafter an order under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 was obtained by the Respondent FI on 16.11.2022.

¶26

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the SA applicant submitted that only amount is required to be adjudicate and applicant undertook to deposit remaining legally permissible amount in three equal installments. Ld. Counsel further submitted that they are depositing regular EMI, though there is certain delay, but the Respondent FI is claiming higher interest, therefore amount is to be adjudicated.

¶27

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶28

It is admitted that the SA applicant availed a home loan of Rs. 9.00 Lac which was to be repaid in 144 EMIs of Rs. 15,906/- and later on in the month of, December 2018 a top up loan of Rs. 4.00 Lac was obtained which was to be repaid in EMI of RS. 8685/-

¶29

¶30

¶31

Accordingly, the SA applicant was required to pay both the EMIs, it is claimed in Para 5.3 of the SA that the applicant paid the amount of installments till 16.12.2022 and this payment is claimed on the basis of photocopies of payment receipts as well as passbook of SA applicant.

¶32

It is claimed in Para 5.4, that during the period of COVID-19, SA applicant deposited monthly installments, but the Respondent FI illegally issued a demand notice on 11.11.2021 through which the account was declared as NPA on 03.04.2021.Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the account was declared as NPA illegally because there was not a continuous default of 90 days.

¶33

It is also alleged in Para 5.5 of the SA, charges/penalties are illegal as demanded in the demand notice are illegal and therefore demand notice is required to be quashed and set aside.

¶34

In Para 5.6, it is submitted that after issuing demand notice, the Respondent FI directly obtained an order under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 and the order was passed as an ex parte order and therefore the said order is required to be quashed and set aside.

¶35

Ld. Counsel for the applicant argued that all the actions initiated by Respondent bank are illegal and therefore all the actions are required to be quashed and set aside and SA applicant may be granted an opportunity to deposit legally permissible amount in three equal installments.

¶36

While filing reply to SA, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent FI strongly objected the grounds taken by SA applicant mainly on the ground that the repayment of EMI was not regular, it is very well evident from the statement of account filed with the reply and therefore the declaration of account as NPA was as per law.

¶37

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent FI also submitted that there is no mandatory provision which

¶38

¶39

¶40

direct the Respondent FI being a secured creditor to issue possession notice and Respondents were very well at liberty to obtain an order under Section 14 of the Act of 2002.

¶41

Based on the documents as annexed with the reply as well as annexed with the demand notice, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent FI prayed for dismissal of SA with heavy cost.

¶42

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶43

Availing credit facility is admitted and service of demand notice upon the SA applicant is not disputed.

¶44

The demand notice do have complete details of outstanding amount as mentioned in schedule 1 of it, details of mortgaged property is mentioned in schedule 2 in the demand notice, therefore I do not find any illegality in the demand notice.

¶45

So far as issue of declaration of account is concerned, it is clear that the account was declared as NPA on 30.04.2021 and from the perusal of statement of account at Annexure R/2 for account no. LNJI00717-180000149, it is clear that installment of January, 2019, April 2-19, June 2019, July, 2019, August, 2019, September 2019, February 2020 were timely paid and the cheque given by SA applicant were bounced on account of one or another reason.

¶46

Benefit of moratorium period was granted to SA applicant, no interest of the said period is charged in the said statement of account.

¶47

Later on EMI for the month of September 2020 to October 2020 were also bounced and the Respondent FI provided ex-gratia benefit of amount of Rs. 3381 on 05.11.2020. Later on EMI were not regularly paid, it was delayed, therefore, I am of the view that there was nothing illegal if the account was declared as NPA on 30.04.2021 because prior to it, the cheques EMIs which were deposited by SA applicant were bounced and so account was not regular at all.

¶48

¶49

¶50

After declaration of account as NPA, in the year 2021, the SA applicant deposited an amount of Rs. 1.00 Lac on 12.04.2023 that too after issuance of directions by this Tribunal and therefore it is clear that applicant stopped payment of EMI, despite having receiving, the demand notice in which it was informed that account was declared as NPA.

¶51

In my considered opinion, SA applicant executed agreement, undertook to pay an amount as per agreed terms and conditions and an amount of EMI was fixed, date of EMI was fixed so the SA applicant being a borrower was required to ensure that any of the cheque paid by him against the payment of EMI should not be bounced because as per agreed terms, if payment of EMI is delayed, the applicant is required to pay delayed interest with said amount, therefore I do not find any reason which can show that the account was declared as NPA illegally.

¶52

So far as the order under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 was obtained by Respondent FI, prior issuance of possession notice, I am of the view that there is nothing illegal in it and therefore as SA applicant failed to deposit entire amount, Respondent FI is very well at liberty to recover the outstanding amount.

¶53

In my considered opinion, if the SA applicant is ready and willing to settle the account, he can approach to the Respondent FI for settlement of account.

¶54

Accordingly, SA being devoid of any merit, stands disposed of as dismissed.

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

Vivek Saxena Presiding Officer DRT, Jaipur

¶58

Pramod Mishra v. Supreme Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Pramod Mishra v. Supreme Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

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

M S Rani versus Namdev Finvest Private Limited

Surendra Agarwal versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Shri Kailash Chandra Charan versus Laxmi India Finleasecap Private Limited