Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Kuber Enterprises & Ors vs Central Bank Of India on 12 October, 2021

Author: Amit Bansal

Bench: Amit Bansal

                          $~18
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      CM(M) 710/2021
                                 KUBER ENTERPRISES & ORS                           ..... Petitioners
                                                    Through:       Mr. Bharat Gupta, Mr. Varun Tyagi
                                                                   and Mr. Gunjan Arora, Advocates.

                                                    versus

                                 CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA                ..... Respondent
                                             Through: Mr. S.A Khan and Mr. Shadab Khan
                                                       Advocates.

                              CORAM:
                              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
                                          ORDER

% 12.10.2021 CM No. 36580/2021 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

CM(M) 710/2021 & CM No. 36579/2021 (for stay)

3. The present petition has been received on urgent listing beyond Court commencement hours and has been taken up for hearing at 04:10PM.

4. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the E-Auction Notice dated 4th September, 2021 and the Sale Notice dated 6th September, 2021 issued by the respondent putting on sale the mortgaged property comprising two shops on land admeasuring 40 Sq. Yards bearing Property no. A- 31 /11 M, out of Khasra no. 379, situated at Village Maujpur, in abadi of Shastri Nagar, Maujpur, Ilaqa Shahdara, Delhi- 110053, under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAKSHI RAMOLA CM(M) 710/2021 Page 1 of 3 Signing Date:10.12.2021 23:43:55 Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).

5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that a Securitisation Application (SA) under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act has already been filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal- III (DRT) on 16th October, 2021, but the same could not be taken up for hearing as the DRT is not functioning. Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.

6. The counsel prays for an ad interim stay of the E-Auction Notice dated 4th September, 2021 as well as the Sale Notice dated 6th September, 2021. He further states that the petitioners are willing to comply with the terms of the latest One Time Settlement (OTS) proposal of the respondent dated 27th May, 2021.

7. The counsel appearing on advance notice on behalf of respondent states that (i) the petitioners have failed to comply with the terms of the previous OTS proposals given by the respondent; (ii) a sum of Rs.55,00,000/- is due as on date from the petitioners; (iii) the E-Auction Notice was issued as far back on 4th September, 2021 and Sale Notice was issued on 6th September, 2021 and nothing prevented the petitioner from taking legal remedies immediately thereafter; (iv) the DRT continued to function till 30th September, 2021; and (v) the respondent has received bids for the aforesaid properties and the bids have been closed today at 4 PM.

8. Issue notice. Notice is accepted on behalf of the counsel appearing for the respondent. Let hard copy of the complete paper book be provided to the counsel for the respondent. Reply be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder, if any, before the next date of hearing.

9. Having heard the counsels for the parties and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that both the E-

Auction Notice as well as the Sale Notice was issued as far back on 4th September, 2021 and 6th September, 2021, respectively, and that bids have been received in respect of the mortgaged property, no case for ad interim injunction against the impugned Sale Notice is made out in favour of the petitioners.

10. The counsel for the petitioners requests that the matter be kept after 10 days to enable him to take instructions.

11. List on 27th October, 2021.

12. In the meanwhile, the SA filed by the petitioners before the DRT shall be taken up for consideration by the DRT as and when the DRT becomes functional. Needless to state, the SA shall be considered by DRT uninfluenced by any observation made in this order.

AMIT BANSAL, J OCTOBER 12, 2021 Sakshi R. Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAKSHI RAMOLA CM(M) 710/2021 Page 3 of 3 Signing Date:10.12.2021 23:43:55