Dismissed

Ramlal v. India Shelter Finance Corporation Limited

DRT10 Jul 2026SA/128/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Debts Recovery Tribunal proceeding, the applicant sought to amend pleadings regarding property details. The court rejected the amendment as being outside the limitation period and finding the amendment created misleading information. The court denied liberty to file a fresh application unless the challenge to actions was within limitation.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a fresh Securitization Application is denied.

Ramlal versus India Shelter Finance Corporation Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶2

Item No. 17

¶3

Case No. SA/128/2026

¶4

RAMLAL Vs INDIA SHELTER FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED

¶5

Date: 10.07.2026. Proceedings through hybrid mode Present:

¶6

Shri Ritesh Kalal, Counsel for the Applicant

¶7

Shri Akshat Kulshrestha, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI

¶8

In this matter, the counsel for the applicant submits that they have filed amendment application and reply to the amendment application has been filed.

¶9

The counsel for the applicant submits that due to mistake of earlier counsel, wrong address has been mentioned of the property. It is not possible that the person who is signing the documents does not know the details of his own property. The main SA talks about the sale deed registered in favour of the applicant and it is not possible that they were no aware of as to the address of their property or details of the property mentioned in the sale deed.

¶10

Reply of the respondent bank is very clear and categorically and according to the counsel for the respondent, the entire pleadings are sought to be challenged in the name of the challenging the details of the property.

¶11

Reply to the Securitization Application was filed on 20.03.2023 and at that time, according to the counsel they have given NOC. It is very easy to put blame on the earlier counsel whereas the affidavits and objections are signed by the applicants only.

¶12

The amendment application has been filed on 02.07.2026 whereas the applicant was in the knowledge of everything after the reply was filed in March, therefore, they had been pursuing the case for a property of admeasuring 253 Sq. Ft. whereas the property which is mortgaged with the bank is 2400 Sq. ft.

¶13

This amendment shows misleading part of the applicant even otherwise, it is admitted by him that they came to know when the reply was given to him.

¶14

¶15

Court of the Presiding Officer

¶16

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶17

This Interim Application is not within the limitation and according to the counsel for the respondent bank, if this amendment is allowed, this will entirely change the pleading.

¶18

At this stage, counsel for the applicant submits that he may be given liberty to file fresh Securitization Application and the same cannot be granted. If challenge to the actions will be within the limitation, they can do so.

¶19

In view of the above, this Securitization Application stands dismissed. File be consigned to record, as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.

¶20

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶21

Ramlal v. India Shelter Finance Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramlal v. India Shelter Finance Corporation Limited

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

Rajasthan Gramin Bank versus Shrawan Ram

Dharam Vir versus Home First Finance Company India Limited

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ms Khushi Sales

Ms Shree Datar Tarders versus Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited

Manoj Kumar versus Shubham Housing Development Finance Company

Chetan Saini versus Cholamandlam Investment and Finance Company