Lali Singha Roy v. Hdfc Bank Ltd.
Case brief
What is this about?
The Tribunal modified a previous ex-parte order to absolve the petitioner (wife) from loan liability. It held that allegations of fraud requiring full trial evidence are not adjudicable by DRT but the husband admitted the wife had no involvement.
What did the court decide?
Name of Defendant No.2 (petitioner) expunged from judgment and operating portion; Defendant No.2 absolved from loan liability; Recovery Certificate modified.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-3, KOLKATA Order Sheet (Continuation )
| CaseNo. M | A/16/2024- Lali SinghRoy Vs.HDFCeank Lim |
ited |
|---|---|---|
| OrderNo.04 Dt.16.07.2024 5LX!-19 J Dateof Order |
Orderwithsignature Present: ForMAApplicant(defendant No.1):LdcounselMr. P.DaswithMr.S.Mondal ForDefendantBank:Ld ForDefendantNo.2:Ld TarapadaDas counselMs.M.Kanji counselMr.P.Sahawithmr. MA76/2024fitedon9.7.2024atongwithcorrected versionfiledon11.7.2024istakenupforhearing. Heardldcounselsfrom allsides, Considered. Infilingthispetition,MAapplicanthasstated that thepetitioner/defendantNo.Zisex_wifeofdefendant No.1andtheirmarriagetiewasdissolvedbyadecree ofdivorceon24,01.2019 andthereafter the petitioner got married with oneRajKumar and she islivingwith her present husband,RajKumaratpresent. TheappticantbankfiledO.A,2ZZ |
2OL}on 19.03.219 beforethisTribunalwhenthepetitioner joinedherpresentofficeatChennaisinceAugust, 2018. Theapplicantbank withoutanyproper serviceto thedefendant No.2hasfiled theO.A.andimpleaded her inO.A.222/20t9. Itlsallegedthatsince 2015thedefendantNo.1 anddefendantNo.2disassociatedthemselvesfrom theirmaritalrelationshipbecauseofmaritaldisputein between themselves. On70.17.2077,thepetitioner upon returningfrom her officeatKolkata cameacrossasealedenvelope and somedocumentfrom theapplicant Bank,HDFC, wheretohersurprise she foundthathernamewas |
| shownas a co-borrowerin aLPAgrantedagainst the |
|---|
| property of herhusband, AshisSinghaRoy(defendant |
| No.1) inO.A.222/2019. Itisallegedthat thepetitionerwas shown illegally |
| asaco-borrower. |
| It isalsoallegedthattheloanagreement |
| purportedlywas enteredinto by andbetweenHDFC |
| Bankand her ex-husbandastheborrowerNo.1. |
| Itisstatedthat thesignaturesofthepetitioner |
| were executedbyplayingfraudin collusionwithHDFC |
| BankandAshis Singha Roy,theex-husbandofthe |
petltioner. |
| ItisallegedthatHDFCBankincollusionwithher |
| ex-husbandand/orprincipalborroweroftheloan, |
| Ashis SinghaRoysecuredtheloanagainstthe |
| property and otherthreeloanson differentdatesi.e. 24.0a.2077]16.09.2017 and 18.09.2017. Itisstatedthatthebankhadpracticedfraud |
| againstthepetitionerbyusing her forgedsignatures |
| onthebanklngdocuments, Itis statedthatthebank and Ashis SinghaRoy by |
| fraudulent mannerinvolvedthepetitionerasan |
| allegedco-borrowerofthefirstcategory/typeofloan. |
| Itisallegedthat thepetitioner neverappliedfor |
| anytypeofloan,neveravailedanyfinancial |
| assistancefromthebankandneverexecutedany |
| documentin support oftheprincipal borrowerbuther |
| namewaserroneouslyandfraudulentlydescribedas |
| co-borrower. |
| Itisallegedthatthere hadbeenforgeryand |
cheating regarding hersignatures. |
| Itisalso statedthatoneSabyasachiBanerjee, |
| Customer ServiceoFficer,GrievanceRedressalCellof |
| theHDFCBankwhencontactedbyher putallblame |
| upontheex-husbandof thepetitioner,AshisSingha |
| RoywhoistheonlyborroweroFtheloanaccount |
No,82795662 relatingtoLAP. |
| ItisallegedthattheLearned previous Advocatedid |
| nottakeanystepsduetohisnegligenceand |
| carelessnessandtheLdTribunalpassedthefinal |
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) has jurisdiction to adjudicate allegations of fraud requiring oral and documentary evidence beyond books of account.
Whether a decree holding fraud can be passed by a DRT under the SARFAESI Act.
Whether the previous order should be modified to absolve the co-borrower (wife) of loan liability based on the husband's admission.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Lali Singh Roy
- respondent
HDFC Bank Limited
- respondent
Ashis Singha Roy
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
2 orders share this CNR
- Order 1 — this page · Kamal DE
- Order 2 · Kamal DE
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court