Allowed

Yogita Sharma v. Finova Capital Vt Limited

DRT19 Jun 2025MA/82/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur, restored a withdrawn Securitization Application filed by Yogita Sharma against Finova Capital. The Tribunal accepted the applicant's claim of duress and counsel's representation regarding improper conduct by officer representatives. The delay was condoned under relevant statutory provisions, and the application was admitted for listing.

What did the court decide?

The Misc. Application is allowed, the Securitization Application is restored on its original number, and the file is consigned to the record.

Yogita Sharma versus Finova Capital Vt Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶2

Item No. 4

¶3

Case No. MA/82/2025 IN SA/800/2022 YOGITA SHARMA Vs FINOVA CAPITAL VT LIMITED

¶4

Date: 19.06.2025.

¶5

Proceedings through hybrid mode

¶6

Present:

¶7

Shri Kirti Kapoor & Sh. Bhrigu Sharma, Counsel for the Applicant along with Ms. Yogita Sharma

¶8

Shri Akshat Kulshreshtha, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI

¶9

This Misc. Application is moved by the Yogita Sharma who had withdrawn the earlier SA and request is now being made for restoration of the SA in view of the specific development. She is present in person and explains the reasons for withdrawing the Securitization Application.

¶10

Counsel for the applicant on instructions submits that she was under duress and under tremendous pressure & stress because of actions of auction purchaser and bank officers.

¶11

The counsel who appears for the respondent FI submits that there was no pressure which can be termed as illegal stress being extorted on the applicant as officers were doing their own duty. The applicant is a practicing advocate and she owns her statement.

¶12

The Tribunal believes that statement made by her at Bar is correct statement and it might be possible that finally the respondent might have gone little over board. Any steps taken in duress or wrong information can be termed as information non-est in the eyes of law.

¶13

Counsel for the respondent bank submits that in view of the averments in Misc. Application, he leaves it to the Court to condone the delay and restore the SA. Accordingly, looking into the facts and power conferred upon this Tribunal under Section 17(7) of Securitization Act read with Section 19 (25) of RDB Act, this Misc. Application stands allowed and Securitization Application stands restored on its original number.

¶14

Securitization Application be listed on 24.06.2025.

¶15

File be consigned to record, as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.

¶16

¶17

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶18

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer

¶19

DASTI

¶20

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶21

Yogita Sharma v. Finova Capital Vt Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogita Sharma v. Finova Capital Vt 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

Punjab National Bank versus Ramesh Kumar Sherawat

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank versus Chandrawati

Punjab National Bank versus Mohar Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus M S Rajeshwari Tiles

Punjab National Bank versus Jadav Devi Urf Jadav Devi Jat

Ashok Singh versus Tata Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.