The Sanctioned Application filed by borrowers challenging the interest rate and disputing the PCA amount in a home loan dispute was dismissed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The court noted conflicting claims regarding fixed versus floating interest rates but found no merit in the application.
Application dismissed; file consigned to record room.
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-I, CHANDIGARH
SA/44/2025 MURARI LAL Vs PUNJAB HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED
17.09.2025
Item No.26
Present: Ms. Amandeep Soni, Counsel for the Applicants along with Mr. Omparkash/applicant No.2 in person. Mr. Rahul Garg, Counsel for respondent No.1&2/FI.
File taken up today on the basis of application for preponment filed by the applicant.
Admittedly, on 31.07.2010 respondent had sanctioned home loan of Rs.27.00 Lacs to the applicants. To secure the same, applicants had created security interest in respect of two shops and a house situated at Bhogpur. The loan was repayable in 180 installments. In 2013, the account turned NPA. On 07.06.2014 respondent had issued the notice under Section 13(2). Since, the payment was not made, on 28.08.2014 respondent issued the notice under Section 13(4). On 03.01.2017 respondent obtained the DM order. It is stated that around a sum of Rs.52.19 Lacs is due as on 30.07.2025. In the SA, applicants have challenged the rate of interest. Applicants had also filed consumer complaint, which is still pending. Respondent has produced on the record copy of the statement of account. Counsel for the applicant states that loan was sanctioned with the fixed rate of interest; respondent states that it was floating rate of interest.
Ms. Amandeep Soni, counsel for the applicant states that so far applicants have paid Rs.55.00 Lacs. In fact, the applicants have overpaid and nothing is due from the respondent. However, counsel for the applicants has not been able to show any defect in the account statement.
I am of the considered view, that there is no merit in the SA and the same is hereby dismissed.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Pronounced in open Court 17.09.2025 PANKAJ
(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant's application for preponment stands admitted.
MURARI LAL
PUNJAB HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED
PANKAJ
A S Narang
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
