Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Balkrishan Sinsinwar vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction ... on 8 November, 2021

Author: Amit Bansal

Bench: Amit Bansal

                          $~26
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                          +     CM(M) 981/2021

                                BALKRISHAN SINSINWAR                  ..... Petitioner
                                             Through Mr. Sanjay Bhandari and Ms. Reena
                                                     Jain, Advocates

                                                   versus

                                EDELWEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION
                                COMPANY LIMITED                       ..... Respondent
                                             Through  Mr. Samrendra Kumar, Advocate

                                CORAM:
                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

                                         ORDER

% 08.11.2021 [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] CM No.39406/2021 (for Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

CM(M) 981/2021 & CM No.39405/2021 (for Interim Relief)

3. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the ex parte order dated 18th September, 2021 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and the notice dated 18th October, 2021 of the court appointed receiver for taking physical possession of the shop of the petitioner, bearing No.7747/82 situated at Fasih Building, near Clock Tower, Roshanara Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi- 110007 on 08th November, 2021 at 4.00 P.M.

4. Counsel for the petitioner states that a Securitization Application (SA) Signature Not Verified Signed By:ARUNA KANWAR CM(M) 981/2021 Page 1 of 3 Signing Date:08.11.2021 22:35:28 has already been filed against the order under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II (DRT). Further, an interim application has also been filed after the impugned notice was issued by the court appointed receiver. However, the same could not be taken up for hearing as the DRT is not functional due to unavailability of a Presiding Officer. Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in terms of the settlement between the parties, the petitioner was to pay a sum of Rs.39,00,000/- in monthly instalments starting from 24th July, 2020 till 20th March, 2021. Admittedly, the petitioner committed default in payment of the aforesaid amount. Thereafter, the respondent issued notice dated 28th September, 2020 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, which notes that the amount due from the petitioner is Rs. 71,39,176.56/-.

6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent states that as on date, a sum of approximately Rs.87,00,000/- is due from the petitioner.

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

8. Having heard the counsels for the parties and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, subject to the petitioner making payment of Rs.20,00,000/- in the manner indicated below, there shall be stay of the impugned possession notice dated 18th October, 2021. The payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs.20 lakhs shall be in the following manner:

(i) Rs.5,00,000/- on or before 10th November, 2021;

(ii) Rs.5,00,000/- on or before 25th November, 2021;

(iii) Rs.5,00,000/- on or before 10th December, 2021;

(iv) Rs.5,00,000/- on or before 31st December, 2021;

9. It is clarified that in case there is any default made by the petitioner in payment of the aforesaid amounts, the stay order passed by this Court shall automatically stand vacated without any further recourse to this Court and the the receiver, as already appointed, would be entitled to take possession of the property in question.

10. The SA and interim application filed by the petitioner before the DRT shall be considered by the DRT as and when the DRT becomes functional, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. The stay of the impugned possession notice dated 18th October, 2021shall remain in operation till the SA/IA filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken up for consideration by the DRT and shall be subject to orders that may be passed by the DRT.

11. The present petition and all pending applications stand disposed of.

12. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent to apprise the court appointed receiver of the order passed today.

AMIT BANSAL, J.

NOVEMBER 08, 2021 dk Signature Not Verified Signed By:ARUNA KANWAR CM(M) 981/2021 Page 3 of 3 Signing Date:08.11.2021 22:35:28