Summary: Sanjay and Sneha Trivedi challenged a court order that required them to pay 50% of a loan claim to defend themselves in a lawsuit. The High Court allowed them to defend themselves without any conditions, saying there was a real issue to be discussed.
Sanjay and Sneha Trivedi wanted to buy a rowhouse in Sahara Prime City, Nagpur. They booked it in 2007 for ₹56.3 lakhs. They paid ₹22.69 lakhs and signed an agreement in 2009. To pay the rest, they got a ₹35 lakh loan from HDFC, which was connected with Sahara Prime City. But the project failed, and no houses were built.
HDFC gave ₹24.66 lakhs of the loan directly to Sahara Prime City. The Trivedis paid monthly installments for over three years, totaling ₹8.31 lakhs in interest. When the project collapsed, they filed a complaint in 2015. Meanwhile, HDFC marked their account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) in 2016 and took symbolic possession of the property they used as security for the loan.
HDFC filed a quick lawsuit against the Trivedis in 2018. The trial court allowed them to defend themselves, but only if they paid 50% of the claim amount. The Trivedis said this was unfair since the loan was given to Sahara Prime City and not directly to them.
Trivedis' Argument: Their lawyer, Shri Bhushan Mohata, argued that the loan was based on Sahara Prime City's promise and should not be only their responsibility. They claimed Sahara should be included in the lawsuit.
HDFC's Argument: Shri Awadhoot Purohit, representing HDFC, said the Trivedis were obligated by the loan agreement and had to repay it.
Judge Prafulla S. Khubalkar found that the Trivedis raised a valid point: the loan was given to Sahara Prime City, which was not included in the lawsuit. The court noted:
"The defense set up by the defendants cannot at all be considered to be lacking in good faith."
Given the real issue, the court ruled the Trivedis should have unconditional permission to defend themselves without having to pay any amount upfront.
The High Court decided that the Trivedis could defend themselves in court without having to pay a large deposit. This decision highlights the importance of fairness in legal cases and considering all parties involved in financial agreements.
