Back
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Surya Overseas – Appellant
Versus
India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (Oral)
Challenge in the present petition is to the award dated 04.04.2016 whereby the application filed by the petitioner-sole proprietorship under section 22(C) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 has been dismissed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Panipat, Camp Court at Sonipat.
2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner filed application before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Panipat, Camp Court at Sonipat, averring that it had obtained loan of Rs.1,25,15,959/- on interest @ 13% per annum against property vide sanction letter dated 31.01.2013 to be prepaid in 144 instalments of Rs.1,72,037/- each. It was also averred that despite an assurance that there will be no processing or foreclosure charges, an amount of Rs.1,75,776/- was levied against processing charges. Further, the petitioner was forced to adjust the balance loan on 04.08.2014 and an amount of Rs.6,73,797.79 was deducted towards foreclosure charge, in violation of law. The petitioner claimed return of the said amount along with interest @ 24% per annum and compensation for mental and physical harassment.
3. The respondent filed its re
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.
A sole proprietorship and its owner are legally indistinct, making RBI's prohibition on foreclosure charges applicable to sole proprietors under floating rate loans.
The Permanent Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes under the SARFAESI Act and properly set aside the bank's possession notices against the legal heirs after determining substantial repa....
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 Permanent Lok Adalat lacks jurisdiction over property disputes not involving public utility services, and awards obtained through fraud are void.
At the stage of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court cannot go into the veracity of the pleas taken in the plaint or its truthfulness. The same can only be tested in a trial.
The power of attorney authorized the attorney to mortgage the property, creating a binding mortgage valid against the family's claims, even if the borrowing parties did not own the property.
The court ruled that the property of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is collectively owned, and individual members cannot conceal ownership in affidavits for government allotments, leading to disquali....
The petitioner is liable for his wife's loan as per the Guarantee Agreement and cannot contest the attachment of his property, which is valid under the law.
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
