Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Ifci Venture Capital Funds Limited vs Srgp Corporation Limited on 8 August, 2022

Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

                             $~29
                             *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                             +      C.R.P. 115/2022, CM APPL. 35157/2022 & CM APPL. 35158/2022
                                    IFCI VENTURE CAPITAL FUNDS LIMITED                           ..... Petitioner
                                                        Through:        Ms. Shrutee Aradhana, Advocate.

                                                        versus

                                    SRGP CORPORATION LIMITED                                    ..... Respondent
                                                        Through:        None.

                             CORAM:
                             HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
                                                        ORDER

                             %                          08.08.2022
                             CM APPL. 35158/2022 (delay)

The petitioner has filed the present application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the present petition.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The delay in re-filing the petition is condoned.

The application stands disposed of.

C.R.P. 115/2022 & CM APPL. 35157/2022 (stay) The present revision petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 22nd December, 2021. Vide the impugned order the Trial Court while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC') has also passed directions on the application under the Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC filed by the respondent/plaintiff. It is noted at the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:09.08.2022 17:17:45 outset that the subject matter of the present proceedings is the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The petitioner/defendant has already filed an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC against the order granting status quo ante passed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC and it is pending before the Appellate Court.

It is the contention of the petitioner that the suit is barred by Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ' SARFEASI Act, 2002'). Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to determine the prayers sought by the respondent/defendant and the jurisdiction of the Trial Court is ousted. He further submits that the plaintiff/respondent has filed a substantive application under Section 17(1) read with Section 19 of the SARFEASI Act, 2002 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the pleadings contained in paragraph 87, 88, 89, 90 & 91 of the said application which are reproduced hereinbelow:-

87. "It is submitted that as per demand notice dated 23.08.2021 issued by Respondent bank, under Section 13(2), the Respondent is stated to have classified the account of Applicant No.1 as NPA on 30.09.2020.

88. That feeling aggrieved by the demand notice dated 23.08.2021, the Applicants herein send their detailed objections dated 20.10.2021.

89. That without application of judicial mind and in a most cryptic and stereotype manner, the Authorised Officer of Respondent rejected all the objections raised by Applicants, vide its communication dated 05.11.2021. No meaningful and thoughtful consideration was given by the Authorised Officer to the Applicant's objection dated 20.10.2021which is absolutely contrary to the settled principal of law Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:09.08.2022 17:17:45 laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and various Hon'ble High Courts from time to time in their catena of judgments.

90.That pursuant thereto the Respondent bank issued the impugned possession notice dated 30.11.2021 under Section 13(4) of Securitisation Act qua all the shops and plots in question including those for which the Respondent has already received monies and have issued NOC's for sale and transfer.

91. Without prejudice to the above it is submitted that in view of the mandatory provisions of Securitization Act, the Respondent bank has not taken recourse under Section 13(4) of the Act, by not affixing & publishing any notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFEASI Act and rules made thereunder, and therefore the impugned possession notices cannot be sustained."

He submits that a perusal of the said averments in the petition discloses that the respondent/plaintiff has specifically raised challenge to the declaration of the NPA in the said petition filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has also filed an Original Application (OA) No. 1103/2021 before Debt Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi for recovery of Rs.12,60,63,546/- against the respondent/borrower. He submits that the suit filed by the petitioner is also barred due to the filing of this OA as all defences and counter claims of the respondent/defendant can be raised in this OA.

Issue notice to the respondent by all permissible modes including dasti returnable on 22nd August, 2022. Service may also be affected on the respondent through the counsel appearing before the Trial Court. The Petitioner shall file an affidavit of service at least two days prior to the next date of hearing.

The application for stay will be taken up on the next date of hearing. The respondent may file its reply to the said application, if any, before the next date of hearing.

List on 22nd August, 2022.

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA. J AUGUST 08, 2022/msh Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:09.08.2022 17:17:45