Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Bushan Lal Saraf vs Delhi Co - Operative Housing Finance ... on 8 August, 2025

                          $~4
                          *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +         W.P.(C) 8435/2019
                                    BUSHAN LAL SARAF                                                                       .....Petitioner
                                                                  Through:            Mr. Rakesh Dhingra, Adv.
                                                                                      (through VC)
                                                                  versus

                                    DELHI CO - OPERATIVE HOUSING FINANCE
                                    CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.                     .....Respondents
                                                   Through: Ms. Shobhona Takiar, Mr. Kuljeet
                                                            Singh, Mr. Shivam Takiar, Advs. for
                                                            R-1/DCHFC
                                                            Mr. Abhinav Singh, Adv. for R-2
                                                            Mr. Harish Kumar Mehra, Adv. for
                                                            R-3
                                    CORAM:
                                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE
                                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
                                                                  ORDER

% 08.08.2025

1. Out of the 229 members of the respondent no. 3/Ghalib Memorial Co- operative Group Housing Society Limited, 193 members availed loan facility from respondent no. 1/Delhi Co-operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. & Ors. through respondent no.3. It is the case of respondent no.1 that there exists a dispute as regards recovery, and in such an eventuality, though execution proceedings are dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, which was subsequently upheld by the Division Bench of this Court, a Special Leave Petition (SLP) is pending consideration.

2. The respondent no.1 in the Board of Directors meeting held on 26th 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 11/08/2025 at 22:23:14 April 1985, has decided to permit such members of the society who had obtained loan from other institutions, to be deleted from the list of beneficiaries by amending the mortgage deed to that effect. In the present case, the counsel appearing for the respondent no.3, and petitioner states that, the petitioner has never availed the loan facility and as such his property cannot be subjected to mortgage with respondent no.1.

3. The counsel for the respondent no.1 is clear on the issue that what is mortgaged with them is the land and not the flats.

4. The least that was expected of respondent no.1 was to act in accordance with its resolution dated 26th April 1985 passed by the Board of Directors as reflected in the communication dated 1st May 1985, which is produced on record at Annexure P-2.

5. The only defense that is raised by respondent no.1 is that the issue is sub judice before the Apex Court; however, the fact remains that the Apex Court has not granted any stay in favour of respondent no.1.

6. If we consider the findings recorded by the Division Bench of this Court, which are the subject matter of challenge before the Apex Court, particularly paragraph 11, it is amply clear that the respondent no. 1 cannot claim the mortgage of the flat for which no loans were availed by the members.

7. Case of petitioner and respondent no.3 appears to be better placed as the execution proceedings based on an award by the Assistant Collector was already dismissed in favour of respondent no.3, and as such it is strange to note that respondent no.1 is acting contrary to its own resolution passed in the Board of Directors meeting dated 26th April 1985, as reflected in Annexure P-2.

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 11/08/2025 at 22:23:14

8. This could have prompted us to immediately pass an order directing respondent no.1 to issue a no objection in favour of the petitioner; however, only for the purpose that the Special Leave Petition is pending in which the petitioner is one of the intervenors, by way of last chance to respondent no.1 we grant four weeks to take decision qua 'no objection', to be extended in favour of petitioner, as has been prayed in the present petition.

9. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 prays for and is permitted to file counter affidavit within four weeks.

10. List on 18th September 2025.

11. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J ANISH DAYAL, J AUGUST 8, 2025/pr/zb 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 11/08/2025 at 22:23:14