Dismissed

Ashok Kumar Shah v. Mentor Home Loan India Private Limited

DRT21 Jul 2023SA/76/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application filed by borrowers challenging a bank's demand for possession and recovery of dues. The court held the application was within limitation as the possession notice was affixed only before the filing date, but dismissed the application on merits due to installment defaults since 2018 and failure to raise objections to the demand notic

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed as being devoid of merit.

Ashok Kumar Shah versus Mentor Home Loan India Private Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

SA No.- 76/2023

¶5

Ashok Kumar Shah S/o Sh. Ram Bahadur Shah

¶6

Smt. Sunita Devi W/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Shah

¶7

Residing At:- Plot no. 65, Rajat Vihar, Chak Sarna, Bhudharpura,

¶8

Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶9

.........Applicant

¶10

Versus

¶11

Mentor Home Loan India Pvt. Ltd., through Managing Director Mentor House, Govind Marg, Sethi Colony, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶12

........Respondent Bank/FI

¶13

Present :-

¶14

Sh. Bijendra, Counsel for the Applicant

¶15

Sh. Aproov Mathur, Counsel for the Respondent Bank

¶16

(Final Order) (21.07.2023)

¶17

This Securitization Application was filed by the SA applicant on

¶18

19.01.2023 and in the column of limitation it is claimed that the SA is within limitation but an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed by the SA applicant along with this SA.

¶19

In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the applicant claimed that they have initiated a case before the Ld. Consumer

¶20

¶21

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶22

¶23

Forum Court, Jaipur and from their they got information with regard to order dated 16.08.2022 passed by Ld. District Magistrate, Jaipur under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 and so they applied for the same on 10.01.2023, obtained certified copy of the order and filed this SA before this Tribunal on19.01.2023, therefore, delay, if any caused is not intentional and delay may be condoned.

¶24

On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank strongly objected the prayer and he submitted that the SA is badly barred by limitation because demand notice was issued on 02.04.2021 and possession notice was issued on 06.01.2023.

¶25

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶26

It is a fact that possession notice was affixed at the subject property on 06.01.2023 and the same is filed at Annexure -8 to the SA and SA was filed on 19.01.2023 so, the SA is within the limitation.

¶27

Availing credit facility and mortgaged of the subject property is admitted in Para no. 5.C of the SA.

¶28

In Para 5.D it is submitted that the applicant requested the respondent FI to provide updated statement of account and documents with regard to subsidy in the loan account of SA applicant.

¶29

In Para no. 5.F it is submitted that the respondent FI pressurized the SA applicant to deposit the amount and it was also informed that the amount of subsidy has already been adjusted in the account.

¶30

¶31

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶32

¶33

In Para 5.H it is submitted with the Respondent FI are trying to take physical possession of the subject mortgaged property with an ulterior motive, therefore, actions initiated by the respondent bank are required to quash and set aside.

¶34

While filing reply to SA Ld. counsel for the respondent FI strongly objected the prayer and he submitted that the applicant has approached before Ld. Consumer Redressal Forum with the same relief for which the applicant has approached to this Tribunal by way of filing this SA.

¶35

Ld. counsel for the respondent FI referred statement of account filed at Annexure R/3 and submitted that the account was irregular since May 2018 because EMI for the month of May 2018, for the month of June and July 2018 was deposited on 13.07.2018 and thereafter EMI for the month August 2018 to May 2019 were deposited on 01 December 2018, so repayment was absolutely irregular and it was not as per the agreed terms & conditions and therefore, a demand notice (Annexure-4) was issued enclosed with a statement of account, the demand notice was duly served upon the SA applicant but the SA applicant failed to file any objection/ reply to the said demand notice.

¶36

Ld. counsel further submitted that physical possession of the subject mortgaged property was taken by the Authorized officer on 06.01.2023 subject mortgaged property was completely vacant and no resistance was created by the SA applicant.

¶37

¶38

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶39

¶40

Ld. counsel for the respondent FI objected each and every ground

¶41

taken by the SA applicant and prayed that the SA is required to be dismissed.

¶42

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶43

In the SA facts of the case are mentioned form the page no. 2 to 6 but in any of the ground, the applicant failed to point out any illegality in the demand notice, in the possession notice, and therefore, the prayer to quash and set aside the actions initiated by the respondent FI are not required to be entertained. Further from the perusal of statement of account it is clear that account was not regular since beginning and the applicant has committed default in regular payment of EMI since May 2018 and this is also a fact that on or after 10.06.2021, no amount stands deposited, therefore, in my considered opinion the respondent FI is at liberty to recover the outstanding amount, therefore, this Securization Application stands disposed of as dismissed being devoid of any merit.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

(VIVEK SAXENA)

¶47

Presiding Officer DRT, Jaipur

¶48

Ashok Kumar Shah v. Mentor Home Loan India Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Shah v. Mentor Home Loan India Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagaur Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. versus Hdfc Bank

Vijendra and Anr. versus India Shelter Finance Corporation Limited

Transons Overseas India Pvt. Limited versus Punjab National Bank

Ms Guru Kripa versus State Bank of India

Jyoti Kanwar versus Vastu Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.

Shokat Ali versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited