A took housing loan from XYZ Bank in 2007 on the basis of his job. The property was hypothecated in the name of bank thru tripartite agreement between bank, builder and borrower. Paid regular installments until his company got closed in 2009. Within one month of closure, A informed bank via e-mail his inability to repay in Feb 2009 and told bank that he is willing to surrender property in order to settle loan. Bank acknowledged receipt of the mail and advised the customer to go to the bank branch. (Cause of action for debt recovery started immediately after receipt of mail by the bank). The officials did attend to him but told him to pay Rs. 50K in advance to register the property for sale. Customer showed inability to deposit Rs. 50K due to his poor financial condition but told them to sell the property and recover Rs. 50K from the amounts of proceeds. Bank did not pay heed to this. Also met Recovery agent, who visited his house and requested for the same. Customer repeatedly followed up but to no avail. Finally customer became quite. Bank started sending notices, but somehow the same were not delivered to customer. Finally, bank filed a case of debt recovery in DRT in October 2013, notice of which was delivered to customer in Feb 2014. Bank concealed the fact from DRT that customer has already offered to surrender the property wayback in Feb 2009.
1. Is the debt recovery barred by limitation act? Mail sent customer in Feb 2009 and debt recovery petition was filed in October 2013, notice of which was delivered in Feb 2014.
2. Bank in its petition, concealed and omitted the material fact of exchange of mails regarding surrendering of hypothecated property way back in Feb 2009. Is the bank guilty of approaching the tribunal with unclean hands?
3. Can the customer take both the above defense? Kindly enlighten.
4. Citations.
