Delhi High Court - Orders
Abhijit Mishra S/O (Late) Mr. Om Prakash ... vs Tata Capital Financial Services ... on 10 March, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 423/2021, CM APPL. 44777/2021
ABHIJIT MISHRA
S/o (Late) Mr. Om Prakash Mishra,
R/o 7 Priya Enclave,
New Delhi - 110092
Mob: 9891578108
Email: [email protected]
.....Appellant
Through: Counsel for Appellant (appearance
not given).
versus
TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
Through Managing Director
1st Floor, F-12, Dashmesh Niwas,
Preet Vihar, Vikas Marg,
New Delhi - 110092
Email: [email protected]
.....Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 10.03.2026
1. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 21:00:13 1908 (hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟), has been filed on behalf of the Appellant against the Judgment dated 16.11.2021 whereby the Learned Additional District Judge-01, Delhi has rejected the suit of the Plaintiff/Appellant on the grounds of non-maintainability, non-disclosure of cause of action, and that the suit is barred under Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as well as the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
2. The facts, in brief, are that on 21.07.2021, the Respondent granted the line of credit of Rs.25,51,625/-, based on Appellant's excellent credit record and employment with Wipro Limited. However, the Appellant lost his employment with Wipro Limited, on 05.06.2020. He kept on informing the Respondent regularly about the loss of his employment and made a request for invoking the Default Insurance, for the payment of the EMIs inter alia his employment issues.
3. However, despite giving regular updates of his financial situation, the Respondent served a Legal Notice dated 07.05.2021 wherein wrong details including the dues about the loan amount, was mentioned. The Appellant gave a Reply dated 15.05.2021 seeking the copies of the Loan Agreement and for invocation of Default Insurance Clause.
4. Thereafter, the Respondent through its Officers, namely, Mr. Harsh Tomar, Ms. Punita Pandey and Mr. Dinesh, started harassment of the Plaintiff, his family/relatives and friends, by giving threats, intimidation and abuse of due process of law, for recovery of the loan amount. These Officers between 01.08.2021 to 17.08.2021, have continuously reached out through phones, uninvited visits to the house, shouting and screaming at the door in intimidating loud voice for the recovery of the dues, at the house of the friends/relatives, namely, Mr. Vikas Lohia R/o 138, Surya Niketan, Delhi-
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 21:00:13 110092 and Mr. Omkar Mohan Bahl R/o 4/611, Street no. 7, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
5. The Plaintiff/Appellant thus, filed a Civil Suit No. 340/2021 for Perpetual Injunction to restrain/restrict the Defendant from use of threat, intimidation and abuse of process of law, for recovery of the loan against the Plaintiff, his friends, family and relative and to grant Rs.25,00,000/- as damages for the tortuous conduct of the Defendant, for violation of Right to Dignity/Privacy, due process of law, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
6. The Defendant/Respondent has not filed its Written Statement.
7. Learned Additional District Judge vide the Impugned Order dated 16.11.2021, observed that the Plaint which runs into 39 pages, contains mostly the entire Specific Relief Act along with the certain Case Laws. Despite going through the contents thereof thrice, the grievance of the Plaintiff in respect of which he was seeking redressal in the form of discretionary relief of Permanent and Mandatory Injunction, was not discernible. It was held that the relief sought by the Plaintiff on the face of it, cannot be granted; it being hit not only by Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act,1963, but also by the provisions of Indian Contract Act. Accordingly, the Plaint was rejected.
8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection of the Suit, the present Appeal has been preferred wherein the grounds of challenge, are that the Order is a complete disregard of "Principal of Due Process of Law", as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act. The Master Circular of RBI has given statutory directions for the recovery of the loan and has specifically prohibited the employment of This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 21:00:13 recovery agents, to harass the client for recovery of the loan amount. The acts of the Respondent, were in complete disregard to this Master Circular.
9. Reliance has been placed on ICICI Bank vs. Shanti Devi Sharma, (2008) 7 SCC 532; ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Parkash Kaur, (2007) 2 SCC 711 and Security and Secret Service Agency vs. State of Bank of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 424. It is asserted that these aforesaid Judgments have been completely disregarded, while rejecting the Suit of the Plaintiff.
10. In the end, it is contended that the photographs had been filed by the Plaintiff, in support of his averments of threats being given by the Agents of the Respondent, who have been visiting the residence of the Appellant, without following due process of law. Therefore, a prima facie case was disclosed in the Plaint, which has been totally disregarded while dismissing the Suit.
11. A prayer is, therefore, made that the Impugned Order be set-aside and the Suit be restored, to be tried on merits.
Submissions heard and the record perused.
12. From the averments made in the Plaint it is evident that essentially, the Civil Suit for Perpetual Injunction and Mandatory Injunction, was filed by the Plaintiff for restraining the Defendant and its Agents from indulging in arm-twisting tactics and use of threat, intimidation and abuse of due process of law, for recovery of the loan amount.
13. Essentially, the averments are that the Officers of the Respondent, namely, Mr. Harsh Tomar, Ms. Punita Pandy and Mr. Dinesh, have been causing harassment to the Plaintiff and have been issuing threats, intimidation and abusing the process of law for recovery of the loan amount and have been making a phone calls, uninvited visits to the house, shouting This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 21:00:13 and screaming at the door in the intimidating loud voice for recovery of the dues.
14. It is in fact, the intimidation and threat, which is the concern of the Plaintiff/Appellant; these in fact, fall in the realm of penal laws and not the subject matter of a civil right of an individual.
15. Section 4 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 reads as under:-
4. Specific relief to be granted only for enforcing individual civil rights and not for enforcing penal laws-
Specific relief can be granted only for the purpose of enforcing individual civil rights and not for the mere purpose of enforcing a penal law.
16. From the bare reading of this Section, it is evident that where the purpose of filing the Suit is to enforce the penal law and not the individual's rights, then the Specific Relief of equitable relief of Injunction, cannot be granted. The Plaintiff is seeking relief from intimidation, abuse and threat, must invoke criminal machinery. The relief though couched as Permanent and Mandatory Injunction, cannot be granted under the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
17. Reference in this regard, be made to the case of Prof. Dr. Claudio De Simone & anr vs. Actial Farmaceutica Srl CS(OS) 576/2019, wherein it was held as under:
"The reliefs claimed of permanent injunction are governed by the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and fall in the genre of specific relief. Section 4 of the said Act provides that specific relief can be granted only for the purpose of enforcing individual civil rights and not for the mere purpose of enforcing a penal law. Once the plaintiffs have not been able to show any individual civil right in their favour, to be This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 21:00:13 entitled to restrain the defendants from breaching the same, the question of the plaintiffs being entitled to the relief of injunction, thus does not arise."
18. The learned Additional District has rightly observed that in the 39 pages Plaint, aside from quoting the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in extenso along with the case law, the grievance of the Plaintiff in respect of Civil rights, for which he is seeking redressal in the form of discretionary relief, is not discernible.
19. The Suit has, therefore, been rightly rejected. There is no merit in the present Appeal, which is hereby, dismissed. Pending Application, if any, also are disposed of.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J MARCH 10, 2026/RS This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 21:00:13