Delhi High Court - Orders
Rajkumar Singh And Anr vs Pnb Housing Finance Limited on 10 January, 2020
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 237/2020
RAJKUMAR SINGH AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. Tashriq Ahmad, Adv.
versus
PNB HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 10.01.2020
1. The principal grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent is seeking to take possession of the secured asset in pursuance of the proceedings carried out under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
2. During the course of the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before me a notice dated 03.01.2020 issued by the authorized officer of the respondent whereby the petitioners have been intimated that the possession of the secured asset, which is described as Plot No.64, 2nd Floor, Niti Khand-1, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201014, will be taken on 13.01.2020 or any date thereafter.
3. It appears that the petitioners had taken recourse to the statutory remedy under SARFAESI Act, 2002.
4. My attention has been drawn to the order dated 09.10.2018, passed by the concerned Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi (i.e. DRT-II) which is appended on page 111 of the paper book. A perusal of the said order is demonstrative of the fact that a conditional order of protection is passed in favour of the petitioners which required deposit of Rs.7,26,094/- within the W.P.(C) 237/2020 page 1 of 2 timeline defined therein.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners says that against the said order, an appeal was preferred before the DRAT.
6. The DRAT, evidently, vide order dated 15.01.2019 directed the petitioners to make a pre-deposit of 50% of the debt in question. Furthermore, the DRAT had directed that this deposit has to be made with the Registrar of the DRAT. It was further directed by the DRAT that the pre-deposit amount shall be invested in a fixed deposit which will have the maximum rate of interest.
7. The record shows that the appeal was called out by the DRAT on 08.03.2019. The appeal was dismissed on that date on the ground that neither the pre-deposit had been made nor were the petitioners represented on that date before the DRAT.
8. Given this background, the prayers made in the writ petition cannot be allowed.
9. The captioned writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum for agitating their grievance. The petitioners claim that nothing is due to the respondent. This is an aspect which petitioners can very well raise by availing the appropriate statutory remedy.
10. For the purposes of good order and record, the Registry will scan and upload the copy of the notice dated 03.01.2020, apparently, issued by the respondent which was handed over in court by the counsel for the petitioner.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
JANUARY 10, 2020/aj
W.P.(C) 237/2020 page 2 of 2