Delhi High Court - Orders
Dilpreet Singh Bhatia & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 22 December, 2021
Author: Vipin Sanghi
Bench: Vipin Sanghi, Jasmeet Singh
$~34.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11793/2021
DILPREET SINGH BHATIA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Mr. Shashi
Shanker and Mr. Gurmehar Sistani,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGSC with
Mr.Varun Agarwal, Advocate for
respondent No. 1.
Mr. T.K. Ganju, Senior Advocate
alongwith Mr. Bharat Gupta,
Advocate for respondent No. 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 22.12.2021 C.M. No. 46757/2021
1. Issue notice. Mr. Shashi Shanker alongwith Mr. Gurmehar Sistani accepts notice on behalf of the petitioners; Mr. Ravi Prakash accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1/ UOI.
2. This application has been moved by respondent No. 2 to seek clarification of our order dated 12.10.2021. The background in which the clarification is sought is that on 12.10.2021 - when the writ petition was Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:23.12.2021 17:11:02 heard for the first time, we had stayed the dispossession of the petitioners by the Receiver under the SARFAESI Act, upon the petitioners depositing an amount of Rs. One crore in two instalments of Rs. 25,00,000/- and Rs.75,00,000/- within one week and three weeks respectively. That amount was deposited by the petitioners, though belatedly. On 15.11.2021, we allowed the application seeking condonation of delay while making a deposit of Rs. 75,00,000/-.
3. The returnable date was 22.11.2021. On that date, there was a request for pass-over made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners. Since we were busy in hearing other matters, we did not pass-over the matter and adjourned the same to 25.11.2021 while making it clear that no pass-over or adjournment would be granted.
4. On 25.11.2021, it was stated on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners were interested in regularizing the loan account and would approach respondent No. 2 for that purpose. While adjourning the matter to 06.12.2021, we made it clear to learned counsel for the petitioners that whatever steps the petitioners desire to take in that regard, should be taken before the next date, and that in case no settlement is reached by the next date, the matter shall proceed and no pass-over shall be granted.
5. On 06.12.2021, since the Court was busy in taking up other matters, this matter could not be taken up, and the matter was adjourned for 23.03.2022. When respondent No. 2 approached the Receiver to take over possession - since there was no continuation of the interim stay, the Receiver sought a clarification as to whether, or not, this Court has continued the stay against dispossession in favour of the petitioners.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:23.12.2021 17:11:026. We have heard Mr. Ganju - learned counsel for the applicant/ respondent No. 2, as well as Mr. Bhandari - learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Bhandari states that since the DRT is now functional, the petitioners shall move an application before the DRT for hearing of the Securitization Application already filed. He states that the interim order passed by this Court may be continued for a further period of 30 days, within which period the petitioners may seek hearing of the Securitization Application already filed.
7. A perusal of the earlier orders would show that the interim stay granted on 12.12.2021 in this writ petition was not continued thereafter. In fact, it was stated on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are interested in regularizing the loan account and shall approach respondent No. 2 for that purpose. This statement was made on 25.11.2021. We have made it clear that whatever steps the petitioners wish to take in that regard, should be done before the next date. The matter was adjourned to 06.12.2021. By 06.12.2021, the petitioners have not regularized the account. Mr. Ganju states that the petitioners only offered to pay the principal amount of Rs. 3,60,00,000/-, and that too in installments, after adjusting the amount paid. This was not acceptable to respondent No. 2. Thus, the position - as on 06.12.2021, was that there was no settlement reached and there was no stay order continuing in favour of the petitioners against dispossession by the Receiver.
8. We, therefore, clarify that the interim order passed in favour of the petitioners on 12.10.2021 did not continue after 06.12.2021. In any event, considering the request made by Mr. Bhandari, we direct that in case the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:23.12.2021 17:11:02 petitioners make a further payment of Rs. One crore within the next two weeks in favour of respondent No. 2 without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, the Receiver shall not take possession of the property. This is subject to the further condition that the petitioners shall move an application before the DRT for hearing of the Securitization Application within two days. In case such an application is moved by the petitioners, the DRT is directed to hear the application and decide the same on its own merits without being influenced by this order of the Court on the aspect of grant of stay and/or on merits.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the present application and the writ petition stand disposed of. The next date, i.e. 23.02.2022, stands cancelled.
VIPIN SANGHI, J JASMEET SINGH, J DECEMBER 22, 2021 kd Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:23.12.2021 17:11:02