Delhi High Court - Orders
Enna Chopra vs Bank Of Baroda on 4 January, 2022
Author: Vipin Sanghi
Bench: Vipin Sanghi, Jasmeet Singh
$~10.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 106/2022
ENNA CHOPRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Advocate.
versus
BANK OF BARODA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Aggarwal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 04.01.2022 C.M. No. 263/2022
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 106/2022 and C.M. No.262/2022
3. Issue notice. Mr. Aggarwal accepts notice on behalf of the respondent bank.
4. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the DRT, Jaipur - whereby the DRT, Jaipur has declined the application filed by the petitioner/ security applicant seeking stay of taking over of the actual possession of the property in question by the Receiver appointed under the SARFAESI Act on the application of the respondent bank. The DRT, Jaipur has not found a prima-facie case in favour of the petitioner by observing that Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:05.01.2022 14:53:03 the petitioner claims to have derived title on the basis of a sale deed executed in the year 2012 in favour of the petitioner's predecessor-in- interest, whereas the equitable mortgage was created in the year 2009 in favour of the respondent bank. Consequently, the application for stay has been rejected.
5. Mr. Bhandari has submitted that the petitioner is a widow. She is residing in the said premises. He further submits that the petitioner had got a title search conducted which did not lead to sale of the property by the erstwhile owner in favour of the mortgagor. He has other submissions to advance in support of his submission that the sale in favour of the mortgagor itself was illegal for various reasons. However, we are not inclined to go into those aspects since the Debts Recovery Tribunal would be empowered to examine those aspects while dealing with the petitioner's Securitisation Application.
6. So far as the aspect of stay is concerned, we are inclined to stay the dispossession of the petitioner by the Receiver on the following terms & conditions:
(a) That the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.6.25 Lakhs within 15 days from today, and a further amount of Rs.6.25 Lakhs within 15 days thereafter.
(b) Default in payment of either of these instalments on time shall lead to withdrawal of the protection granted by this Court in favour of the petitioner and the Receiver shall be entitled to take over actual physical possession of the property without any further order.
(c) The Securitisation Application of the petitioner shall be heard by the DRT and disposed of positively within two months hereafter. Neither Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:05.01.2022 14:53:03 party shall seek nor be granted any adjournment. Since DRT, Delhi is now functional (as additional charge has been entrusted to DRT, Allahabad in respect of DRT-III), we direct re-transfer of the matter from DRT, Jaipur to DRT, Delhi.
(d) The parties shall appear before the DRT-III, Delhi on 17.01.2022 for directions. On that date, the DRT-III shall fix the matter for hearing in terms of the timelines fixed by us. The petitioner should take steps for summoning of witnesses, etc. well in time to ensure that there is no delay in the hearing of the petitioner's Securitisation Application.
7. The Registrar, DRT, Delhi shall ensure compliance of this order.
8. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
VIPIN SANGHI, J JASMEET SINGH, J JANUARY 04, 2022 B.S. Rohella Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:05.01.2022 14:53:03