Partly allowed

Anil Kumawat v. Tata Capital Housing Fiannce Ltd.

DRT20 Aug 2026SA/112/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a service_application concerning debt recovery, the Tribunal stayed the respondent bank possession action pending regular payment of the entire overdue amount of Rs. 19,83,020 in four monthly installments with accrued interest. Regularization required six consecutive payments.

What did the court decide?

Stay on possession of secured asset granted provided applicant pays entire overdue amount of Rs. 19,83,020 in four monthly installments from August 2026, paying accrued interest on final installment;

Anil Kumawat versus Tata Capital Housing Fiannce Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

20.08.2026	SA 112/2026
Present:	Mr. Wazid Hyder, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant. Mr. Harjas Singh Chhabra, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank.
	In this case, Id. Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the applicant do not deserve any Interim Relief in its favour as he has deliberately and regularly defaulted the orders passed by this Tribunal as well as by Hon'ble High Court. He further submitted thatthe total overdue amount as on today isRs.19,83,020/-, in this case, if any, amicable settlement is proposed it is only acceptable if the applicant pays the entire overdue amount before the date of possession i.e. 21.08.2026. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant on the other hand has filed Memo No.9008/2026 and submitted that without entering into the merit of the case the Applicant is ready and willing to pay the entire overdue amount within 4 moths in 4 equal installment. On these grounds it has been prayed that the Applicant may begiven a chance to amicably regularise his account and the Respondent may be restrained from taking possession of the secured asset as scheduled on 21.08.2026. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand vehemently opposed this proposal and submitted that the Respondent is not agreed with the proposal to deposit the overdue amount within 4 moths which is very long period. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the proposal of the Applicant is not reasonable and it should be rejected and the Respondent may be given free hand to proceedin accordance with law. I have heard both Counsel and perused the records. There is no doubt that the proposal for depositing entire overdue within 4 months in 4 equal installment is somewhat at the exaggerated side but if the Applicant is directed to deposit the accrued interest on final date of payment with regard to the overdue amount with the last installment, in considered views of the Tribunal no prejudice is going to be caused against the respondent. On the other hand, if the proposal is accepted there is a chance of applicant to regularise his account and the Respondent may be able to recover the public money from the Applicant without any further expenses. Keeping this object in mind following order is being passed. ORDER
	1. The applicant is directed to deposit the entire overdue amount of Rs.19,83,020/- in 4 equal monthly installments within 4 months. It is made

¶2

clear that such installment the Applicant also be liable to pay accrued interest of the intervening period from this date to 4 months on last date of payment.

¶3

It is also directed that the Applicant must pay these EMIs regularly from the month of August, September, October and November, 2026 and on payment of six consecutive EMIs alone the account of the Applicant is considered as regularised. To facilitate the Applicant in complying the terms of this order the Respondent is restrained from taking possession of the secured asset as scheduled on 21.08.2026. however, in case of single default on behalf of the Applicant the accordance with law. Respondent will be at liberty to proceed in

¶4

¶5

1. It is also made clear that by filing this memo of undertaking the Applicant has waived all his rights with regard to this SA he will not permit to file fresh SA on any of the ground as mentioned in this

¶6

With this observation let this SA be finally disposed of.

¶7

Let the file be consigned to records.

¶8

Nishita/1

¶9

DRT-II, AHMEDABAD PRESIDING OFFICER (PANKAJ KUMAR UPADHYAY)

¶10

Incharge: DRT Jabalpur

Anil Kumawat v. Tata Capital Housing Fiannce Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumawat v. Tata Capital Housing Fiannce Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank versus Sri.Heeru Somalu Lamani

Canara Bank versus Sri.Vijayakumar

Canara Bank versus Sri.Veerendra. D.M

Ms Anjani Kumar Srivastava and Others versus Mansarovar Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Mr Amit Kumar Nag and Anr. versus Axis Bank Limited

Sri Tuhin Kumar Das and Another versus Bank of India