Mahinder Mohan Ajmani & Anr vs Idfc First Bank Limited on 12 October, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Mahinder Mohan Ajmani & Anr vs Idfc First Bank Limited on 12 October, 2021

Bench: Amit Bansal

                          $~13
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      CM(M) 707/2021
                                 MAHINDER MOHAN AJMANI & ANR.          ..... Petitioners
                                             Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Advocate.

                                                    versus

                                 IDFC FIRST BANK LIMITED                           ..... Respondent
                                               Through: None.

                              CORAM:
                              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
                                          ORDER

% 12.10.2021 CM No. 36252/2021 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

CM(M) 707/2021 & CM No. 36251/2021 (for interim relief)

3. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 10th September, 2021 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), South District, Saket in CT Case No. 991/2021 and the notice dated 22nd September, 2021 issued by the Court appointed Receiver to the petitioners seeking to take possession of property bearing no. C-3/20, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi on 16th October, 2021.

4. Counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of the Court to the order dated 3rd September, 2020 passed by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 825/2020 along with other connected petitions wherein it was stated that accounts that were not declared NPA till 31st August, 2020 Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAKSHI RAMOLA CM(M) 707/2021 Page 1 of 3 Signing Date:10.12.2021 23:43:55 shall not be declared NPA till further orders. It is submitted that the said order continued till 23rd March, 2021. In the present case, the account of the petitioners was declared NPA on 4th January, 2021 in violation of the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court.

5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that a Securitisation Application (SA) under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (SARFAESI Act) has already been filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) on 25th August, 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. Counsel for the petitioners submits that an advance copy of this petition has been served on the respondent bank directly through email as there is no nominated counsel for the respondent bank.

7. None appears on behalf of the respondent.

8. The present petition is being entertained only on the account of non- functioning of the DRT and the urgency of the relief sought.

9. The petitioners through counsel undertake that a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- would be paid by the petitioners to the respondent bank by tomorrow itself and a further sum of Rs.30,00,000/- on or before 31st October, 2021. The petitioners shall remain bound by the aforesaid undertaking.

10. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- would be paid on or before 30th November, 2021.

11. Issue notice. Notice be issued through all modes to the respondent bank. Reply be filed within 3 weeks from today.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAKSHI RAMOLA CM(M) 707/2021 Page 2 of 3 Signing Date:10.12.2021 23:43:55

12. Subject to petitioners depositing a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by 13th October, 2021 and a further sum of Rs.20,00,000/- on or before 31st October, 2021 there shall be a stay on the possession notice dated 10th August, 2021.

13. In the event that the aforesaid amounts are not paid on the due dates, the stay order passed by this Court shall automatically stand vacated without any further recourse to this Court.

14. The aforesaid directions have been passed as an interim arrangement only on account of the non-functioning of the DRT. 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.

15. List on 10th November, 2021.

AMIT BANSAL, J OCTOBER 12, 2021 at Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAKSHI RAMOLA CM(M) 707/2021 Page 3 of 3 Signing Date:10.12.2021 23:43:55

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders