Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 2]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Gagan Deep Dugal & Ors vs Religare Housing Development Finance ... on 25 May, 2022

Author: C.Hari Shankar

Bench: C.Hari Shankar

                          $~80(Appellate)
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +     CM(M) 491/2022 & CM No. 25126/2022, CM No. 25127/2022
                                GAGAN DEEP DUGAL & ORS.                ..... Petitioners
                                             Through: Ms.Kanika      Agnihotri        and
                                             Ms.Yashodhara Gupta, Advs.

                                                    versus

                                RELIGARE  HOUSING                DEVELOPMENT       FINANCE
                                CORPORATION LTD.                           ..... Respondent
                                             Through:            None

                                CORAM:
                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
                                                    ORDER

% 25.05.2022

1. Ms. Agnihotri appearing for the petitioner has questioned the correctness of the findings contained in the following passage from the impugned order dated 2nd May, 2022 passed by the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ("the learned NCDRC") in IA/21701/2018, IA/2409/2022, & IA/3474/2022 in Consumer Case No. 2609 of 2018 (Gagan Deep Duggal & Ors. v. Religare Housing Development Finance Corpn. Ltd.) :

"I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. In paragraph 1 of the complaint, which was filed on 25.11.2018, the complainants have stated that for loan of Rs.14373026/-, Rs.17144148 had been paid and for loan of Rs.50724129/-, Rs.68316636/- had been paid. According to the loan agreement, the entire loan had to be paid in 120 months of Equated Monthly Instalments i.e. loan was repayable upto 30.08.2020. The complainants have filed the notice issued by the opposite party dated 03.05.2018 (Annexure-C-14), which shows that the complainants had committed default in paying the instalment since April, 2018. The complainants have not filed any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 491/2022 Page 1 of 3 By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:27.05.2022 16:08:08 document to show that any instalments have been paid by them after April, 2018. In IA/2409/2022 all of sudden figure Rs.31437189/- and Rs.121245684/- have been shown by the complainants as paid amounts. In the absence of documentary proof in respect of payment, the statement as given in paragraph-3 of IA/2409/2022 is not liable to be believed. There is nothing on record to show that 120 instalments of the loans have been regularly paid by the complainants. The complainants have filed Repayment Schedule along with IA/2409/2022, from which, the only fact is proved that in respect of one loan the EMI has been increased from 120 to 154 (payable up to 01.06.2024) and in respect of other loan EMI has been increased from 120 to 159 (payable up to 01.11.2024). The allegations that more than double amount of the sanctioned loan have been paid by the complainants is not proved from any evidence on record. Supreme Court in Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 44 held that High Court ought to have appreciated that by passing such an interim order the right of the secured creditor to recover the amount due and payable has been seriously prejudiced. The secured creditor and/or its assigner have right to recover the amount due and payable to it from the borrowers. Stay granted by High Court would have serious adverse impact on the financial health of the secured creditor/assigner. Therefore, High Court should have been extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion while granting stay in such matters."

(Emphasis supplied)

2. Ms. Agnihotri has invited my attention to a statement of account dated 02.05.2022 annexed as Annexure P-2 to the petition and to the instalment amounts reflected in the 4th column of the said statement of accounts.

3. I have enquired Ms. Agnihotri to explain in greater detail as to how this document could reflect amounts which had been paid by the petitioner, so as to discountenance the finding, of the learned NCDRC, that there was no evidence to show that any instalment had been paid Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 491/2022 Page 2 of 3 By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:27.05.2022 16:08:08 by the petitioner after April, 2018. She seeks a day's accommodation to demonstrate this fact.

4. Re-notify on 30th May, 2022.

C.HARI SHANKAR, J MAY 25, 2022/kr Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 491/2022 Page 3 of 3 By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:27.05.2022 16:08:08