Delhi District Court
Rakesh Talwar vs M/S Karvy Financial Services Pirvate ... on 24 November, 2025
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PRITAM SINGH
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, SOUTH-EAST
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ 11480/16
CNR No.DLSE01-008197-2016
1. Rakesh Talwar
R/o W-80 Greater Kailash, Part -2,
New Delhi-110 048.
2. Naini Talwar
W/o Rakesh Talwar
R/o W-80 Greater Kailash, Part -2,
New Delhi-110 048.
3. Karan Talwar
S/o Rakesh Talwar
R/o W-80 Greater Kailash, Part -2,
New Delhi-110 048.
4. M/s. Talbros Cork Products Private Limited,
Registered office at K-258, A,
Mamchand Dhania Marg.,
GT Karnal Road, Near Gurudwara,
Siraspur, New Delhi-110 042.
5. M/s. BNT Motors Private Limited,
Registered office at K-258, A,
Mamchand Dhania Marg,, GT Karnal Road,
Near Gurudwara, Siraspur,
New Delhi-110 042. .... Plaintiffs
VERSUS
CS DJ 11480/16 Rakesh Talwar & Ors. vs. M/s Karvy Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
-2-
M/s. Karvy Financial Services Private Limited
Office at K-59, 1st Floor, Block-II,
Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi-110024. .... Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY
Date of Institution : 26.10.2016
Date reserved for judgement : 13.11.2025
Date of judgement : 24.11.2025
DECISION : PARTLY DECREED
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the de-
fendant for the recovery of Rs.33,17,900/- and Rs.3,11,605/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and cost.
CASE OF PLAINTIFFS
2. Brief facts of the case, as set out in the plaint, are that the Plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 namely Mr. Rakesh Talwar, Mrs. Naini Talwar, Mr. Karan Talwar are individuals and the Plaintiffs No. 4 to 5 namely M/s. Talbros Cork Products Pvt. Ltd. ("TALBROS") and M/s. BNT Motors Pvt. Ltd. (BNT) are companies duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The Plaintiff No. 1 o 3 are also directors of the Plaintiff No. 4 & 5 Mr. Rakesh Tewatia is duly authorized to sign, verify and file the present suit on the behalf of all the Plaintiffs in terms of Special Power Attorneys executed by the Plaintiff No. 1 to 3 and Board Resolutions of the Plaintiff No. 4 & 5. All the above CS DJ 11480/16 Rakesh Talwar & Ors. vs. M/s Karvy Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
-3-persons are joined as Plaintiffs in the present suit as the right to relief for the Plaintiffs arises out of the same act/transaction of the Defendant and if the Plaintiffs bring separate suits then common question of law as well as fact would arise.
3. The Defendant M/s. Karvy Financial Services Private Limited having its office at K-59, 1st Floor, Block-II, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-110024 is inter alia engaged in the business of financial services including providing loans of various kinds to the consumers since 2009.
4. The Plaintiffs agreed to avail loans facilities from the de-
fendant. The details of these loans are mentions hereunder:
Name Loan Account No. Amount
BNT 900523 43,39,663
BNT 311813 10,00,000
BNT 100523 1,71,67,337
TALBROS 110523 57,98,650
TALBROS 301813 40,00,000
TALBROS 400784 70,00,000
TALBROS 404776 50,00,000
Plaintiff no.1 to 3 111523 1,26,94,350
5. The loans were sanctioned by the Defendant on Novem-
ber 13, 2010 as business loans against property and a Home Equity Agreement was also executed. Thereafter, from time to time, the interest rates on the loan amount were revised. How- ever, the Defendant's services were not satisfactory at all and hence the Plaintiffs intended to foreclose the above said loans. Admittedly, the Defendant was charging far more interest than other such institutions in the market. However, huge pre-pay- ment charges of the Defendant prevented the Plaintiffs from CS DJ 11480/16 Rakesh Talwar & Ors. vs. M/s Karvy Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
-4-foreclosing the loan. Hence, the Plaintiffs sought waiver of the Pre-payment charges so that the loans can be foreclosed imme- diately.
6. Adhering to the request of waiver of prepayment charges, on May 17, 2013, the Defendant issued a letter regard- ing the prepayment charges stating that the prepayment charges to be 2 (two) percent of the loan amount after 1 (one) year from date of revision of rates, 1 (one) percent of the loan amount after 3 (three) years from date of revision of rates and nil foreclosure charges after 4 (four) years from date of revi- sion of rates. This obviously meant there would not be any pre- payment in case the loans were foreclosed by the plaintiffs within one year of the said letter.
7. With the above-said understanding, the plaintiffs vide e-
mail dated January 14, 2014 communicated to the defendant in writing that they would wish to close the loan facility extended. Therefore, the plaintiffs requested to the defendant to kindly is- sue a 'Foreclosure Letter' against all sub-loans.
8. Despite several requests and reminders, the defendant kept postponing foreclosure of loans on some pretext or an- other. It was however, solely because of unavailability of sign- ing official of the defendant that the said foreclosure actually took place on February 10, 2014 whereby a total sum of Rs. 5,38,32,440/- (Rupees Five Crore Thirty Eight Lac Thirty Two Thousand Four Hundred Forty only) was paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant and a closure letter was issued by the defen-
CS DJ 11480/16 Rakesh Talwar & Ors. vs. M/s Karvy Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
-5-dant.
9. However, upon proper perusal of the closure letter and other documents, the Plaintiffs realized that the defendant has charged a pre-payment charges (five) percent of the loan amount. Further, an absurd delayed interest was also charged on the above said amount from the plaintiffs, whereas all the delays were, in fact, caused by the defendant.
10. The Plaintiffs immediately protested and reported to The Defendant KFSL that excess charge being levied by way of penalty on foreclosure and delayed interest. Despite several re- quests and reminders in this regard (latest being on April 30, 2015). Accepting and acknowledging the liability the Defen- dant refunded a sum of Rs. 3,67,138 in favour of Plaintiff No. 1 vide Cheque No.992884 dated July 1, 2014 drawn 992884 dated July 1, 2014 drawn on Axis Bank, Fort Branch, Mumbai. However, the Defendant failed, refused, neglected refund the remaining amount.
11. Further, the defendant have also failed to refund a sum of Rs.3,11,605/- (Three Lakh Eleven Thousand Six Hundred and Five Rupees only) towards excess TDS collected from the Plaintiff No.5.
12. Left with no other alternative, the Plaintiffs finally is-
sued a legal notice dated June 15, 2015 seeking refund of the above-said amounts. Despite due receipt of the legal notice, the defendant failed to discharge its liability. However, the defen- dant did send a reply to the legal notice of the plaintiffs CS DJ 11480/16 Rakesh Talwar & Ors. vs. M/s Karvy Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
-6-whereby it refuted all the demands of the plaintiffs.
13. It is stated that the defendant is liable to refund a sum of Rs. 28,40,968/- towards illegal pre-payment charges collected from the plaintiffs. Further, the defendant is also liable to re- fund a sum of Rs. 5,32,465/- towards illegal delayed interest amount collected from the plaintiffs. Out of which, Rs. 3,67,138/- already stands refunded. Further, the defendant is also liable to refund a sum of Rs. 3,11,605/- towards excess TDS charges collected from Plaintiff No.5.
14. Hence, the present suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant with a prayer that a decree in the sum of Rs. 33,17,900/- in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant towards illegal pre-payment charges and illegal delayed inter- est amount collected from the plaintiffs and a decree of Rs. 3,11,605/- in favour of the plaintiff No.5 and against the De- fendant towards excess TDS charges collected from Plaintiff No. 5 along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum with cost.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT
15. The defendant filed its Written Statement denying the averments in the plaint. It is stated that the present suit is li- able to be dismissed for being devoid of a cause of action. The plaintiffs have availed several loan from defendant Company vide different loan account and each and every loan account contains separate Arbitration clause. It is stated that plaintiffs should have invoked arbitration rather CS DJ 11480/16 Rakesh Talwar & Ors. vs. M/s Karvy Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
-7-than fling present suit. It is further stated that the present suit is liable to be rejected/dismissed under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1998. More so plaintiffs themselves filed one of such agreements with present delib- erately concealed some pages, however wherein Plaintiff had agreement (at page 21 of the suit) it is evident that per clause 10.7(h) of the said between parties that in the event of any dispute with respect to the sand was specifically agreed agreement(s) said dispute has to be referred to the Arbitrator to be appointed by Respondent herein. In view of the arbitration clause present suit is liable to be dismissed and matter is liable to be referred to Ld. Arbitrator.
16. It is further stated that the present suit is liable to be dismissed as different plaintiffs have been joined to file present suit for the different loan transaction agreements whereas all plaintiffs should have filed different suits with respect to the different loan accounts. It is further stated that the plaintiffs had made circumstances complex in nature. It is further stated that the plaintiffs were never entitled to claim relaxation/waiver on any prepayment penalty.
17. It is further stated that the present suit is liable to be dismissed as plaintiffs after having approached defendant for foreclosure of loan accounts were issued detailed fore- closure letter wherein prepayment charges and other rele- vant details were mentioned and after going through the same plaintiffs agreed to make payments towards the re-
CS DJ 11480/16 Rakesh Talwar & Ors. vs. M/s Karvy Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
-8-spective loan accounts, hence it does not lie in the mouth of the plaintiffs to challenge the said charges after accepting the same.
18. It is further stated that the plaintiffs had approached the defendant for loan facility of Rs.7 crores against differ- ent loan accounts from time to time.
19. It is further denied that there was no prepayment charges in case the loans were foreclosed by the plaintiffs if the said loans were foreclosed within one year of the letter dated 17.05.2013. The prepayment charges were 5% but the same were reduced on the request of the plaintiffs with re- spect to the payment made after one year from the date of letter dated 17.05.2013. Thus, the prepayment charges with respect to the prepayment made within one year from 17.05.2013 remained unaffected i.e. 5%. It is further denied that there was prepayment charges if the loans were fore- closed by the plaintiffs within one year of the letter dated 17.05.2013.
20. It is further denied that plaintiffs ever requested for closing the loan facility prior to their mail. The e-mails of the plaintiffs cannot be relied upon as the same are not sup- ported by certificate under Evidence Act. The defendant had as per its procedure and guidelines issued for closure letter and plaintiffs have after going through the same and knowing very well that letter dated 10.02.2014 contained 5% prepayment charges made payments towards the said CS DJ 11480/16 Rakesh Talwar & Ors. vs. M/s Karvy Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
-9-loan accounts. Hence, it does not lie in the mouth of the plaintiffs, claiming anything contrary to the same.
21. It is further denied that defendant failed to refund the TDS amount to the plaintiffs. The TDS was returned to the plaintiffs in the month of July, 2014. It is further denied that the defendant is liable to refund Rs.28,40,968/- or any other amount to the plaintiffs. It is further denied that the defen- dant is liable to refund Rs.5,32,565/- to the plaintiffs. All other averments made in the plaint were denied by the de- fendant.
REPLICATION
22. The plaintiffs have filed replication denying all the averments and contents made in the written statement. and reiterating the contents of the plaint. The plaintiffs have reaffirmed and reiterated the averments made in the plaint. ISSUES
23. On the basis of pleadings and documents on record, fol-
lowing issues were framed on 08.03.2019 :-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the defendant an amount of Rs. 33,17,900/- or any other amount from the defendant towards pre-pay-
ment charges and delayed interest alongwith interest @ 18 % per annum or at any other rate pendente lite and future on the basis of the grounds taken in the plaint? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff no. 5 is entitled to recover from the defendant an amount of Rs. 311605/- or any other amount towards excess TDS collected by the defendant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum or at any other rate pendente lite and future on the basis of the grounds taken in the plaint? OPP 3.
CS DJ 11480/16 Rakesh Talwar & Ors. vs. M/s Karvy Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
- 10 -
Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action? OPD.
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for misjoin- der of causes of action? OPD.
5. Relief.
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
24. Plaintiffs in support of their case examined Sh.
Rakesh Tewatia, as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit EX.PW1/A and relied upon the following docu- ments:-
1. Copy of Board Resolution on behalf of plaintiff no. 4 Ex.PW1/1.
2. Copy of Board Resolution on behalf of plaintiff no. 5 Ex.PW1/2.
3. SPA in favour of plaintiffs Ex.PW1/3.
4. Copy of offer letter for loan facility-Mark P1.
5. Copy of loan agreement P2.
6. Copy of email with certificate u/s. 65 of IEA Ex.PW1/6.
7. Copy of foreclosure letter dt 10.02.2014 Mark P3.
8. Original receipt dt 11.02.2014 Ex.PW1/9.
9. Copy of legal notice dt 15.05.2015 Ex.PW1/10.
10.Reply to legal notice dt 27.07.2015 Ex.PW1/11.
25. In the cross-examination of PW1, PW1 deposed that the evidence affidavit was signed by him in his office. PW1 further deposed that he has received the evidence affidavit on e-mail from his counsel and he sent the signed affidavit to his counsel through the office runner and the counsel has CS DJ 11480/16 Rakesh Talwar & Ors. vs. M/s Karvy Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
- 11 -
got the same notarized. PW1 admitted the suggestion that evidence affidavit was not notarized in his presence. PW1 further deposed that he cannot say if he had filed any Sec- tion 65 B affidavit in support of the e-mails relied upon by him. PW1 further deposed that it has not been mentioned in the affidavit how the services of the defendant was unsatis- factory.
26. PW1 further deposed that he had supplied details of the case to the counsel for the purpose of preparing the affi- davit. PW1 denied the suggestion that the interest charged by the defendant was in accordance with the loan agree- ment. PW1 was shown court record and asked to point out where it was mentioned that excess interest has been charged according to plaintiff and how much interest is in excess. PW1 pointed out to page no.54 which is e-mail dated 11.02.2014 wherein penalty amount is mentioned. PW1 admitted the suggestion that defendant has not charged excess interest. By way of volunteer, PW1 deposed that excess interest of 51 days is yet to be recovered and penalty has also been levied by the defendant.
27. Question was put to PW1, was it correct that the plaintiffs were aware that the pre-payment penalty @ 5% shall be levied by the defendant in the eventuality of pre- payment of the loan facilities. PW1 replied that in the offer letter the pre-payment penalty was mentioned after 1 year 5%, after 2 year 2% and it was also mentioned the pre-pay-
CS DJ 11480/16 Rakesh Talwar & Ors. vs. M/s Karvy Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
- 12 -
ment and the interest rate will be changed as per mutual dis- cussion and the renewal letter. PW1 was shown the court record to point out the renewal letter. PW1 pointed out to page no.28 and 29 of the list of documents which was letter dated 17.05.2013 of the suit and also pointed out to page no.5 to 21 of the rejoinder. These were the letters regarding pre-payment penalties issued by the defendant.
28. Question was put to PW1, was it correct that the said offer letters no where provides any waiver of the pre-pay- ment penalty or reduction in the pre-payment penalty in ac- cordance with the loan agreement if the pre-payment is made within one year of the issuance of the said offer let- ters. PW1 replied that it is correct but it is not mentioned anywhere that the pre-payment penalty charge will be 5%. PW1 further deposed that the request for pre-payment was raised by the plaintiffs in December 2013. PW1 again said that the request for pre-payment was made on 27.01.2014.
29. Question was put to PW1, was it correct that there was no documents on record which shows that the request for foreclosure of the loan accounts was made by the plaintiff in the month of December 2013 or on 27.01.2014. PW1 replied that on page no.54, it was mentioned regarding mutual discussion of Mr. Amit Ranjan on 27.01.2014 and meeting with Mr. Deepak on 10.02.2014, they requested for the foreclosure. Question was again put to PW1, was it cor- rect that the statement made by him in para 6 of the affi-
CS DJ 11480/16 Rakesh Talwar & Ors. vs. M/s Karvy Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
- 13 -
davit is incorrect in view of the statement made by him herein above. PW1 replied that the contents of para 6 are correct.
30. Question was again put to PW1, had the plaintiffs filed any e-mail dated 14.01.2014 on record. PW1 replied that plaintiffs have not filed email dated 14.01.2014 on re- cord but they have that email and they would file the same. Question was again put to PW1 that was it wrong to suggest that the plaintiffs have not raised any request for the fore- closure of loan facilities in December 2013 or in January 2014 and therefore no communication/letter has been filed to this effect. PW1 replied that they raised foreclosure re- quest through email on 14.01.2014 by phone calls on 27.01.2014 and personal meetings on 10.02.2014. Question was again put to PW1 that had they mentioned in his affi- davit that any foreclosure request was made by the plaintiff telephonically on 27.01.2014. PW1 replied it is not men- tioned in the affidavit but the same email is attached in evidence.
31. It is important to mention here that defendant failed to conclude the cross-examination of PW1 despite oppor- tunities granted, therefore, its right to cross-examine PW1 was closed vide order dated 03.02.2023. It is further import- ant to mention here that despite opportunities granted to the defendant, it failed to lead evidence. Hence, the right of the defendant to lead DE was closed vide order dated CS DJ 11480/16 Rakesh Talwar & Ors. vs. M/s Karvy Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
- 14 -
03.04.2024.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS
32. Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs states that the plaintiffs have availed loan facilities from the defendant, however, the defen- dant was charging interest at the higher rate, therefore, plain- tiffs have decided to foreclose the loan but huge prepayment charges prevented them from foreclosing the loan. Therefore, they sought waiver of the prepayment charges from the defen- dant so that loans can be foreclosed. Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs further states that the defendant vide letter dated 17.05.2013 stated that the prepayment interest after one year would be 2%, after 3 years 1% and after 4 years no prepayment interest. The defendant has not stated any prepayment interest if the loan is repaid within one year from 17.05.2013 and the plaintiffs paid the entire loan amount within one year from 17.05.2013 but despite that the defendant charged 5% interest as prepayment charges amounting to Rs.28,40,968/-.
33. Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs further states that the defen-
dant has also caused delay in the foreclosure process and there- fore, liable to pay interest towards the delay a sum of Rs.5,32,000/-. The defendant had also deducted Rs.3,11,605/- an excess TDS, therefore, liable to pay Rs.3,11,605/-.
34. Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs further states that there was no interest prescribed for prepayment in the loan agreement. The loan agreement provides for a schedule regarding the prepay-
CS DJ 11480/16 Rakesh Talwar & Ors. vs. M/s Karvy Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
- 15 -
ment interest, however, no such schedule was produced by the defendant. Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs further states that plain- tiffs have proved the case and decree may kindly be passed in their favour.
35. The findings on the issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the defendant an amount of Rs. 33,17,900/- or any other amount from the defendant to- wards pre-payment charges and delayed interest alongwith interest @ 18 % per annum or at any other rate pendente lite and future on the basis of the grounds taken in the plaint? OPP.
36. The burden to prove this issue was on the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have examined Sh.Rakesh Tewatia as PW1. PW1 has reiterated all the contents of the plaint in his evidence by way of affidavit. PW1 admitted the suggestion that defend- ant has not charged excess interest. PW1 voluntarily de- posed that excess interest of 51 days is yet to be recovered and penalty has also been levied by the defendant.
37. A question was put to PW1 that plaintiffs were aware that the pre-payment penalty @ 5% shall be levied by the de- fendant in the eventuality of pre-payment of the loan facilities. PW1 replied that in the offer letter the pre-payment penalty was mentioned after 1 year 5%, after 2 year 2% and it was also mentioned the pre-payment and the interest rate will be changed as per mutual discussion and the renewal letter.
38. PW1 admitted the suggestion that offer letter nowhere CS DJ 11480/16 Rakesh Talwar & Ors. vs. M/s Karvy Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
- 16 -
provides any waiver of the pre-payment penalty or reduc- tion in the pre-payment penalty in accordance with the loan agreement if the pre-payment is made within one year of the issuance of the said offer letter, however, it was men- tioned nowhere that the pre-payment penalty charge would be 5%.
39. The above discussed testimony of PW1 is somewhat shaky. On the one hand, PW1 admitted that the defendant has not charged excess interest, on the other hand, he volun- tarily stated that excess interest of 51 days was yet to be re- covered and penalty was also levied by the defendant. PW1 also admitted that the offer letter for foreclose dated 17.05.2013 nowhere provided that if the pre-payment was made within one year of the issuance of the said offer letter, there would be no pre-payment charges. Though, PW1 also stated that it was not mentioned anywhere that pre-payment penalty charges would be 5 %.
40. The main dispute is qua the pre-payment charges when prepayment was made within one year of letter dated 17.05.2013. According to the plaintiff, when they sought waiver of pre-payment charges in order to foreclose the loans, the defendant issued letter dated 17.05.2013 stating that pre-payment charges would be 2 % of the loan amount after one year from the date of revision of rates i.e. 17.05.2013, 1 % of the loan amount after 3 years from the date of revision of rates and no interest on foreclosure CS DJ 11480/16 Rakesh Talwar & Ors. vs. M/s Karvy Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
- 17 -
charges after 4 years from the date of revision of rates. The plaintiffs are interpreting the letter dated 17.05.2013 in a way that as no pre-payment charges was mentioned if the loans were repaid within one year from the date of revision of rates i.e. 17.05.2013 and the plaintiffs had repaid the loan within one year from the letter dated 17.05.2013, therefore, the defendant had wrongly charged 5 % interest on the amount paid. On the other hand, the case of the defendant is that the plaintiffs were liable to pay 5 % pre-payment charges as per terms of loan agreement and in the letter dated 17.05.2013 it is no where stated that there will be no pre-payment charges if the loan amount is repaid within one year from 17.05.2013.
41. It is not in dispute that plaintiffs had sought waiver of pre-payment charges in order to repay the loan. The defend- ant considering the request of waiver of pre-payment charges issued a letter dated 17.05.2013 stating that the pre- payment charges would be 2 % of the loan amount if the loan is repaid after one year, 1% of the loan amount if the loan is repaid after 3 years and nil foreclose charges if the loan is repaid after four years. The letter dated 17.05.2013 does not provide what would be the pre-payment charges if the loan is repaid within one year from the revised rates i.e. 17.05.2013. The question arises whether not mentioning the pre-payment charges for the loan amount to be repaid within one year amounts to zero pre-payment charges. The CS DJ 11480/16 Rakesh Talwar & Ors. vs. M/s Karvy Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
- 18 -
court is of the considered view that the pre-payment charges cannot be zero if the loan is repaid within one year from the date of letter dated 17.05.2013 i.e the date of revi- sion of rates because the rates of interest of pre-payment charges is reducing if more time is taken to repay the loan. The pre-payment charges was 2% of the loan amount if the loan amount is repaid after one year but the pre-payment is 1% of the loan amount if loan paid after 3 years and no pre- payment charges if the loan is repaid after 4 years. There- fore, if the loan is repaid within one year from 17.05.2013 then obviously the pre-payment charges would on higher side. The further question arises what would be the pre-pay- ment charges if the loan is repaid within one year from 17.05.2013. The answer can be found in offer letter for loan facility dated 27.08.2012 Mark P1 wherein in the last column it is provided fee on full and final prepayment "5% on amount prepaid and on all amounts tendered by the bor- rower towards prepayment of the loan during the last one year from the date of final prepayment". Thus, it is clear that if the loan is pre-paid within one year the pre-payment charges would be 5 % of the loan amount.
42. After considering the letter dated 17.05.2013 issued by the defendant, the plaintiffs vide email dated 14.01.2014 communicated to the defendant to close the loan facility and asked for the foreclose letter against all the loans. The defendant on 10.02.2014 issued a foreclosure letter CS DJ 11480/16 Rakesh Talwar & Ors. vs. M/s Karvy Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
- 19 -
whereby a total sum of Rs.5,38,32,440/- was stated and the plaintiffs paid the said amount. The plaintiffs were well aware at the time of making the payment of Rs.5,38,32,440/- to the defendant that interest @ 5 % has been charged as pre-payment charges but the plaintiff paid the entire amount and foreclosed the loans. The plaintiffs have not raised objection of charging higher interest rate on the loan amount. The plaintiffs protested about the rate of interest on the foreclosure of loan amount after making the payment but the same is afterthought. Hence, it is estab- lished that the defendant has not charged excess pre-pay- ment interest on the loan amount from the plaintiffs.
43. The next contention of the plaintiffs is that the de-
fendant delayed in the processing of foreclosure due to which the defendant is liable to refund Rs.5,32,465/- to- wards illegal delayed interest collected from the plaintiffs. It is the case of the plaintiffs themselves that defendant vide letter dated 17.05.2013 provided them the details of pre- payment charges for foreclosure of loan. Thereafter, the plaintiffs vide email dated 14.01.2014 communicated the defendant and they wished to close the loan facility and asked for foreclosure letter against the said loans. The de- fendant provided foreclosure letter on 10.02.2014. From 14.01.2014 to 10.02.2014 there is a gap of about 26 days. The question arises whether the delay can be attributed to the defendant. The plaintiffs have failed to prove that after CS DJ 11480/16 Rakesh Talwar & Ors. vs. M/s Karvy Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
- 20 -
14.01.2014 they have communicated with the defendant and requested early foreclosure but it was deliberately delayed by the defendant. In fact PW1 deposed in cross-ex- amination that plaintiff have not filed e-mail dated 14.01.2014 on record. PW1 further deposed that mutual dis- cussion was held on 27.01.2014 and meeting with Deepak on 10.02.2014. If the mutual discussion took place on 27.01.2014 and 10.02.2014 and foreclosure letter was is- sued on 11.02.2014 then how it can be said that there was delay on the part of the defendant. Further, the letter regard- ing the rate of interest on the pre-payment of the loan amount was issued on 17.05.2013. The plaintiff applied/ communicated with the defendant for issuance of foreclose letter on 14.01.2014 i.e. after about 7 months after 17.05.2013 then how the plaintiffs can blame the defendant for delaying the issuance of foreclosure letter. Thus, plaintiffs failed to prove deliberate delay on the part of de- fendant in issuing the foreclosure letter.
44. In view of the above discussions, the issue no.1 is de-
cided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiffs. ISSUE NO.2
2. Whether the plaintiff no.5 is entitled to recover from the defendant an amount of Rs.3,11,605/- or any other amount towards excess TDS collected by the defendant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum or at any other rate pendente lite and future on the basis of the grounds taken in the plaint? OPP CS DJ 11480/16 Rakesh Talwar & Ors. vs. M/s Karvy Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
- 21 -
45. The burden to prove this issue was on the plaintiff no.5. PW1 deposed that the defendant deducted Rs.3,11,605/- towards excess TDS from the plaintiff no.5. The defendant in their reply stated that the TDS was re- turned to the plaintiffs in the month of July, 2014. Thus, it is established that excess TDS was deducted by the defend- ant from the plaintiff no.5 and the burden shifts on the de- fendant to prove that the excess TDS amounting to Rs.3,11,605/- was paid to the plaintiff no.5 in the month of July, 2014. The defendant has not lead any evidence to prove that Rs.3,11,605/- was returned to the plaintiff no.5 in the month of July, 2014. Hence, it is established that the de- fendant has not refunded excess TDS amounting to Rs.3,11,605/- the plaintiff no.5. The plaintiff no.5 is claim- ing interest @ 18% per annum. However, interest @ 18 % per annum is on a very higher side. Considering the nature of transaction between the parties pendente lite and future interest @ 9 % per annum is granted to the plaintiff no.5 on the amount of Rs.3,11,605/- from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the amount. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff no.5 and against the defendant ac- cordingly.
ISSUE NO.3.
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action? OPD.
46. The burden to prove this issue was on the defendant.
CS DJ 11480/16 Rakesh Talwar & Ors. vs. M/s Karvy Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
- 22 -
The defendant has not lead any evidence. On the other hand, it is admitted case that the defendant has provided loan facilities to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs wished to fore- close the loans and asked for foreclosure letter from the de- fendant. The defendant issued foreclosure letter dated 10.02.2014 and accordingly, the plaintiffs pre-paid the loan amount. The dispute is regarding the rate of interest on the pre-paid loan amount. Hence, there is cause of action to file the present suit and the suit is not without cause of action. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO.4.
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for misjoinder of causes of action? OPD.
47. The burden to prove this issue was on the defendant.
The defendant has failed to lead any evidence. As discussed above the plaintiffs have cause of action to file the instant suit. Therefore, how the suit is bad for misjoinder of cause of action, the defendant has failed to explain. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.
RELIEF:-
48. As per the findings of issue no.2, the plaintiff no.5 is entitled for a decree of Rs.3,11,605/- along with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realiza- tion of decretal amount. Accordingly, a decree in the sum of CS DJ 11480/16 Rakesh Talwar & Ors. vs. M/s Karvy Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
- 23 -
Rs.3,11,605/- along with interest @ 9 % from the date of filing of the suit till realization of decreetal amount is passed in favour of plaintiff no.5 (M/s BNT Motors Private Limited) and against the defendant.
49. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accord-
ingly. Digitally signed
by PRITAM
PRITAM SINGH
50. File be consigned to record room. Date:
SINGH 2025.11.24
16:46:25
+0530
Announced in the open Court on (PRITAM SINGH)
this 24th day of November, 2025 District Judge-04/South-East
Saket/Delhi
CS DJ 11480/16 Rakesh Talwar & Ors. vs. M/s Karvy Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.