Back
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Om Prakash Narang – Appellant
Versus
Permanent Lok Adalat For Public Utility Services – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (Oral)
Challenge in the present petition is to the Award dated 14.06.2019 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Ludhiana, whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Section 22C(8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is the sole proprietor of M/s Narang Handloom and in April 2014, the petitioner-applicant availed loan of Rs. 50,00,000/- vide account No.HLAPLUD0010- 8621. The petitioner-applicant had thereafter availed another loan of Rs. 26,26,747/- from respondent-non-banking finance company vide loan account No.HLAPLUD00181385. Thereafter, The terms and conditions of the said loan agreement were settled between the parties at the time of disbursement of the said loan. The applicant-petitioner started repayment of the said loan in equated installments. However, in the year 2016, another bank agreed to take over both the loans, whereupon the petitioner asked the respondent-non-banking finance company to calculate the total outstanding amount due towards the petitioner. However, while conveying the total outstanding amount, the res
A sole proprietorship and its owner are legally indistinct, making RBI's prohibition on foreclosure charges applicable to sole proprietors under floating rate loans.
A sole proprietorship is not a separate legal entity from its owner and is treated as an individual for legal purposes, affecting the applicability of foreclosure charges.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioners availed the loan as partners of the partnership firm and not as individual borrowers, and therefore, the notification dated 14....
The court ruled that foreclosure charges on business loans are valid and borrowers are bound by the terms of the sanction letter, regardless of any claim of protest during payment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the benefit of the Notification dated 14.7.2014 would not be applicable to a loan sanctioned in the name of a Partnership Firm, as it is not a....
Foreclosure charges can be imposed on business loans as they fall outside the RBI's prohibitive circulars for home loans; acceptance of contract terms binds the debtor.
The classification of loan accounts as borrower-wise under the SARFAESI Act is upheld, emphasizing that a guarantor cannot evade liability due to another borrower's NPA status.
A sole proprietorship concern and the proprietor are one and the same and cannot be treated as separate juristic entities under the RERA Act, 2016.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
