Dismissed

Radhe Shyam v. Csl Finance Limited

DRT3 Jun 2026SA/393/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this special application challenging loan recovery proceedings, the Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims of fraud and improper NPA classification. The court held that allegations were unsubstantiated and dismissed the application with costs.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- payable to DRT Bar Association. All pending IAs dismissed.

Radhe Shyam versus Csl Finance Limited — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶2

Item No. 53

¶3

Case No.SA/393/2026

¶4

RADHE SHYAM Vs CSL FINANCE LIMITED

¶5

Date: 03.06.2026.

¶6

Proceedings through hybrid mode:

¶7

Present:

¶8

Shri Tej Pratap Singh, Counsel for the applicant

¶9

Shri Pramod Kumar, Counsel for the Respondent

¶10

In this matter, counsel for the applicant submits that they have filed the Patwari Report which shows that there is no construction in Khasra No. 50.

¶11

There is another Patwari Report filed by the Respondent FI with correct description of the property. Respondent FI has also filed the photographs of the property at the time of taking loan where Jitendra Sharma is standing who is son of SA applicant.

¶12

From the perusal of Patwari reports and photographs, it is clear that property which is shown in the photographs depicted as Khasra no. 50, property of which the bank had taken possession.

¶13

Counsel also relies upon the RBI guidelines to show that it is a minor discrepancy and should be ignored, but no such guideline has been placed on record. It is also submitted that account has been classified as NPA in an illegal manner just to attach the secured immovable assets of the applicants.

¶14

Taking of loan is not denied, creation of the security is not denied and the most shocking is the Para xxiii of the SA which is reproduced here as under:-

¶15

xxiii. That it is prima facie evident that the defendant has cheated, committed fraud & breach of trust by misusing the trust reposed in the Defendant FI and have illegally appropriated the money for the personal gains as despite of paying the EMI(s), the Defendant FI have illegally

¶16

¶17

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶18

siphoned the money in interest which is not as per the terms and under default charges and benefitting from that have claimed of Rs. 31,88,442/- which is outrageous and shows that the defendant have used money for wrongful gain and putting the applicant to wrongful loss.

¶19

The allegations leveled by the applicant are towards the integrity of the officers of the Respondent without any sum and substance. For making such wild, baseless and malicious allegations, this SA deserves to be dismissed with cost.

¶20

After perusal of the documents, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the account of the applicant turned into NPA on 04.09.2025 for which demand notice dated 05.09.2025 was issued. It is very easy to make allegations, but this Tribunal asked for substantiating the same, then it is submitted that it is only for charging excess interest. Simply for charging interest may be according to the applicant is excess interest. Such wild and malicious allegations cannot be made.

¶21

The only grievance of the applicant is that Khasra No. 50 does not have possession and therefore, the action of the bank is not correct. The applicant stopped from saying so because they themselves mortgaged the property at the time of taking loan by showing the property whose photograph is filed as the property to be mortgaged.

¶22

Respondent has proceeded as per law, there is no deficiency in their action, this SA deserves to be dismissed with cost, accordingly SA stands disposed of as dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to DRT Bar Association. All pending IAs if any stands disposed of.

¶23

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

¶24

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶25

Radhe Shyam v. Csl Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhe Shyam v. Csl Finance 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

Sikander Khan versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Mrs Kiran Devi versus Hdfc Bank

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus M/S Unikol Bottlers Ltd.

Pream Kanwar versus Manibhavnam Home Finance India Private Limited

Rajasthan Gramin Bank versus Foosaram Alias Phusaram

Babulal Meena versus Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited