Ms. Sangeeta Sahni & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 October, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Ms. Sangeeta Sahni & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 October, 2021

Bench: Prateek Jalan

                    $~21 (2021 Cause List)
                    *     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                    +            W.P.(C) 2210/2021 with CM APPL. 6441/2021

                                 MS. SANGEETA SAHNI & ORS.                 ..... Petitioners
                                              Through: Mr. Bijender P. Kumar, Advocate
                                                       on behalf of Mr. Shashank Deo
                                                       Sudhi, Advocate.

                                                           versus

                                 UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                           ..... Respondents
                                               Through:        Mr. Ravi Prakash CGSC and Ms.
                                                               Shruti Shivkumar, Adv. for
                                                               UOI.
                                                               Mr. Rahul Tyagi, Advocate for R-3
                                                               & 4.

                    CORAM:
                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

                                             ORDER

% 27.10.2021 The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.

1. Mr. Rahul Tyagi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, draws my attention to the order dated 21.10.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 8275/2020, wherein the said respondents were directed to treat the writ petition as a representation in view of the petitioners' submission that they wish to settle the matter with the Bank. The petitioners' settlement offer was since rejected, against which the petitioners have filed the present petition.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:28.10.2021 12:34:24 W.P.(C) 2210/2021 Page 1 of 3

2. By an order dated 18.02.2021 in the present petition, it was recorded as follows: -

"6. Mr. Shashank Deo Sudhi, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the aforesaid communication of the bank is not in consonance with the order of this Court dated 21.10.2020, inasmuch as reasons have not been given for the bank's decision not to accept the settlement offered by the petitioner. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 are directed to file an affidavit on this aspect.

7. With regard to the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 ["SARFAESI Act"], the order dated 21.10.2020 records in paragraph 4 that there are no reasons to interdict the notice issued by the bank under Section 13(2) thereof. It appears that the writ petition was in fact entertained by this Court only in order to permit the parties to arrive at a negotiated settlement. At this stage also, I see no reason to entertain the petition insofar as the challenges to the notices under the SARFAESI Act are concerned. The petitioners have an alternative remedy against those proceedings by way of appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal ["DRT"] under Section 17 of the Act. The petitioners are at liberty to take steps in that regard, if they are so advised. In the event the petitioners approach the DRT against the notices issued under the SARFAESI Act, the DRT will consider their case in accordance with law, and pass such interim or final orders as it considers appropriate. This Court does not express any opinion upon the merits of those proceedings. However, it is made clear that the pendency of the present writ petition will not impede the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, or any appeal which may be filed by the petitioners thereunder.

8. The counter-affidavit, including the stand on the aspects indicated in paragraph 6 above, will be filed by respondent nos.3 and 4 within four weeks. Other respondents may also file their counter-affidavits within four weeks. Rejoinders thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter".

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:28.10.2021 12:34:24 W.P.(C) 2210/2021 Page 2 of 3

3. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have since filed a counter affidavit, stating the reasons for which the petitioners' settlement proposal has been rejected.

4. In this view of the matter, it prima facie appears that the present writ petition is liable to be disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to take their remedies in accordance with law against any actions taken by the Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

5. At this stage, Mr. Bijender Kumar, learned counsel, seeks a passover on behalf of Mr. Shashank Deo Sudhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. However, it is not possible to pass the matter over today.

6. List on 14.12.2021.

PRATEEK JALAN, J OCTOBER 27, 2021 'BP' Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:28.10.2021 12:34:24 W.P.(C) 2210/2021 Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders