In a Special Application regarding an outstanding loan, the Applicant was dismissed for offering a lump sum settlement despite the property being in the Respondent's possession. The court found false declaration and non-disclosure of facts as grounds for dismissal.
Special Application and all interim orders dismissed; file consigned to record.
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.
Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
Item No. 15
Case No. SA/563/2023
VIKAS KUMAR AND ANR Vs MENTOR HOME LOANS INDIA LTD
Date: 21.04.2025.
Proceedings through hybrid mode Present:
Shri Asad Sheikh, Counsel for the Applicant
Shri Alok Mathur, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI
In this matter, applicants were directed to approach the respondents for a settlement. Counsel for the applicant submits that they have visited a number of time with the 10% down payment and an OTS proposal which according to them is Rs. 7.00 Lac, so they have offered an amount of Rs. 7.00 Lac for OTS.
Counsel for the Respondent submits that only on Saturday, they have approached the bank and against a total outstanding amount of Rs. 97.00 Lac they are offering only Rs. 7.00 Lac which is a meager amount. He submits that they are ready and willing to waive the penalty charges and penal interest, in case a one time payment is made. Counsel for the Respondent submits that the applicant is claiming that no notices have been served to them as the property is in the possession of the bank.
At this juncture, Counsel for the Respondent submits that the SA have been filed from the same address and in the rejoinder also they have mentioned the same address of the property which is in the possession of the bank.
The Tribunal asked the Counsel for the applicant for clarification. Counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent can find out the new addresses. He submits that they have not been served the notices till date. Even today, he is not inclined to give the new addresses
cm
Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
submitting that till the property is auctioned, it is in his name, and therefore, he is entitled to give that address only.
In view of the above, SA is liable to be dismissed and all the interim order stands vacated. SA is dismissed for non-disclosure of the facts and making false declaration.
Accordingly, SA stands disposed off as dismissed, all pending IAs also stands disposed off, if any.
File be consigned to record as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.
(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
cm
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Special Application should be dismissed due to non-disclosure of facts and false declaration regarding property address.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to provide the auction property address as it is in his name pending auction.
Whether the offered settlement amount is sufficient to warrant waiver of charges.
VIKAS KUMAR AND ANR
MENTOR HOME LOANS INDIA LTD
Vimal Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
