Delhi High Court - Orders
Anjana Madaan & Ors vs Union Bank Of India (Erstwhile Andhra ... on 26 October, 2021
Author: Amit Bansal
Bench: Amit Bansal
$~129
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 836/2021
ANJANA MADAAN & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vineet Chadha, Advocate.
versus
UNION BANK OF INDIA (ERSTWHILE ANDHRA BANK) &
ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. N.P. Gaur with Mr. Umesh
Prasad and Ms. Apoorva Gaur,
Advocates for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
ORDER
% 26.10.2021 [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] CM No. 37696/2021 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
CM(M) 836/2021 & CM No. 37695/2021 (for stay)
3. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the 9 petitioners, who are the flat buyers, impugning the Possession Notice dated 13th October, 2021 issued by the Court appointed receiver to the said petitioners seeking to take possession on 2nd November, 2021 of their respective flats situated at Property no. l2 & 15, Part of Khasra No. 289, Village Nangloi Sayed, New Delhi.
4. The counsel for the petitioners submits that (i) the petitioners are all bonafide purchasers of the aforesaid flats in question vide registered sale deeds; (ii) the petitioners have already filed a Securitisation Application Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ARUNA KANWAR CM(M) 836/2021 Page 1 of 3 Signing Date:27.10.2021 14:40:50 (SA) under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) in May, 2021 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT)-I against the symbolic possession sought to be taken over by the respondent no.1 Bank and notice has been issued on the same; and (iii) after issuance of the Possession Notice, applications for preponement of hearing and interim relief have been filed by the petitioners before the DRT-I however the same could not be taken up for hearing as the DRT-I is not functioning and therefore, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court.
5. The counsel appearing on advance notice on behalf of the respondent no.1 Bank submits that the property in question was mortgaged with the respondent no.1 Bank on 20th May, 2011 and all the petitioners have purchased the flats after the said mortgage was created.
6. The present petition is being entertained only on account of non- functioning of the DRT-I and the urgency of the relief sought.
7. Having heard the counsels for the parties and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the aforesaid Possession Notice shall not be given effect to till one week after the DRT-I becomes functional. The aforesaid direction has been made purely as an interim arrangement on account of non-functioning of the DRT-I. The applications for preponement of hearing and interim relief filed by the petitioners before the DRT-I shall be taken up for consideration before the DRT-I as and when the DRT-I becomes functional.
8. Needless to state that no observations with regard to the merits of the case have been made in this order and the DRT-I will consider the applications filed on behalf of the petitioners uninfluenced by any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ARUNA KANWAR CM(M) 836/2021 Page 2 of 3 Signing Date:27.10.2021 14:40:50 observations made in this order.
9. The petition along with the accompanying application stands disposed of.
10. A copy of this order be communicated by the respondent no.1 Bank to the Court appointed receiver.
AMIT BANSAL, J OCTOBER 26, 2021 Sakshi R. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ARUNA KANWAR CM(M) 836/2021 Page 3 of 3 Signing Date:27.10.2021 14:40:50