Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Devesh Kumar Jain S/O Sh. Amrish Kumar ... vs Iifl Home Finance Ltd on 4 March, 2020
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3103/2020
1. Devesh Kumar Jain S/o Sh. Amrish Kumar Jain, Aged
About 32 Years, By Caste- Jain , R/o- Plot No. 13, 2nd
Floor, Roopnagar-1St, Arjun Nagar Phatak, Gopalpura
Byepass, Jaipur
2. Piyush Garg S/o Sh. Mukesh Chand Garg, R/o- E-114,
Vaishali Nagar, E-Block, Jaipur
3. Dr. Anurakt Williamson S/o Late Sh. Dixon Williamson,
R/o 40/51, Sector-40, Swarn Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. IIFL Home Finance Ltd., Having Branch Office At Ambition
Tower, Office No. 307-312, 3rd Floor, Agrasen Circle, C-
Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan Through Its Authorized
signatory Shri Jangsher Khan
2. Radha Krishna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registered
Office At E-92, Coral Castle, Subhash Marg, C-Scheme,
Jaipur Through Its Director Giriraj Ratan Daga
.........Respondents
3. Sh. Anant Agarwal S/o Ram Rakh Agarwal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o 91-53, Pratap Nagar, Housing Board, Tonk Road, Sanganer, Jaipur
4. Smt. Uma Joshi W/o Sh. Sudhir Kumar Joshi, Aged About 65 Years, R/o 205, Sterling Apartments, B-6B Prithvi Raj Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur
5. Smt. Priya Baheti, W/o Sh. Vishnu Baheti, Aged About 38 Years, R/o E113/1, Secor-11, Pratap Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur
6. Sh. Anurodh Sharma S/o Sh. Ram Swaroop Sharma, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Flat No. 203, Golden Jewels, Plot No. 83, Ganesh Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur
7. Smt. Nirmala Maheshwari W/o Late Sh. Jagdish Narain Maheshwari, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Plot No. 71, Deshbandhu Nagar, Opp. Galta Gate, Bus Stand, Jaipur
8. Sh. Deepak Kalani S/o Sh. Nandkishore Kalani, Aged About 43 Years, R/o 119/247, Agarwal Farm, Mansarover, Jaipur (Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:15:40 PM) (2 of 5) [CW-3103/2020]
9. Krishna Kumar Sharma S/o Late Sh. B.R. Sharma, Aged About 72 Years, R/o 99, Century Homes, Patrakar Colony, Jaipur
10. Smt. Abha Kaushik W/o Sh. Arvin Kaushik, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Plot No. 4, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
11. Sh. Arvind Kaushik S/o Sh. Mohan Singh Kaushik, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Plot No. 4, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
12. Mr. Puneet Bhargawa S/o Sh. Rishi Bhargawa, Aged About 49 Years, R/o C-32, Peeyush Path, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur
13. Smt. Supriya Somani W/o Sh. Suresh Chandra Somani, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 74, Prem B/29, Rajendra Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur
14. Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain-HUF S/o Sh. Lt. Ratan Lal Jain, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Plot No. 36, Bajaj Nagar Enclave, Jaipur
15. Smt. Kusum Jain W/o Sh. T C Jain, Aged About 71 Years, R/o C-22/1, BD Road, Jaipur
16. Sh. Praveen Batra S/o Sh. Shravan Kumar Batra, R/o 4/168, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur-302004
17. Smt. Nishita Swami W/o Sh. Piyush Swami, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Plot No. A-201, Kewal Marg, Shiv Nagar, Murlipura, Jaipur
18. Sh. Hanuman Sharma S/o Sh. Atma Ram Sharma, Aged About 38 Years, R/o A/P 103, Anand Heights Apartments, Ananad Vihar, Railway Colony, Jagatpura, Jaipur
19. Smt. Radha Manwani W/o Sh. Bhagwan Sahai Manwani, Aged About 68 Years, , R/o D-12, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
20. Smt. Laxmi Sharma W/o Sh. Subhash Chandra Sharma, Aged About 53 Years, R/o F-53, Lal Bhadur Nagar, JLN Marg, Jaipur
21. M/s Hith Consulting Private Limited, Having Its Registered Office At Flat No. G-4, Plot No. 2, Shivgyan Avenue, Yudhisther Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302005 Through Its Authorized Signatory Smt. Laxmi Sharma And Smt. Radha Manwani
22. M/s Shri Hith Raghav Enterprises Private Limited, Having Its Registered Office At 108, Shivgyan Avenue, 2 Yudhisther Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302005 Through Its Authorized Signatory Smt. Laxmi Sharma And Smt. (Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:15:40 PM) (3 of 5) [CW-3103/2020] Radha Manwani
23. M/s BIA Consultants Private Limited, Having Its Registred Office At 107, Shivgyan Avenue, 2 Yudhisther Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur 302005 Through Its Authorized Signatory Smt. Laxmi Sharma And Smt. Radha Manwani
----Performa Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramit Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akshat Kulshrestha HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 04/03/2020 This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 27.12.2019 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby the prayer for interim relief made by the petitioners in their Securitisation Application filed under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, the Act of 2002), has been rejected.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are bonafide purchasers of their respective flats under registered sale deed from respondent No.2 on the strength of No Objection Certificate issued by the respondent No.1-financial institution. It is submitted that behind their back, the respondent No.1 has obtained an order dated 22.10.2019 from the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, whereby the respondent No.1 has been permitted to take possession of the properties of Plot No.B-64 and B-65, Sahkar Marg, Lal Kothi Scheme, Jaipur. The petitioners challenged the order dated 22.10.2019, as their flats are situated on the (Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:15:40 PM) (4 of 5) [CW-3103/2020] aforesaid flats, by way of Securitisation application. The learned Debt Recovery Tribunal has rejected their prayer for interim relief vide its order dated 27.12.2019, which is impugned herein.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they are bonafide purchasers on the basis of No Objection Certificate issued by the respondent No.1 and should not be dispossessed during pendency of the appeal before the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that there is alternative and efficacious remedy of statutory appeal under Section 18 of the Act, 2002 available to the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that aggrieved of the order dated 27.12.2019, some of the applicants therein, have already resorted to the remedy of appeal which is subjudice before the learned Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. He also disputes the genuineness of No Objection Certificate allegedly issued by it. He submits that these No Objection Certificates have not been issued by it; rather, have been fabricated and forged by the respondent No.2.
Relying upon Rojnamcha dated 20.02.2020 of the Police Station, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur City (South), he contends that in pursuance of the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 22.10.2019, the respondent No.1 has already taken physical possession of the flats in question. He alleges that breaking open the locks of the seized flats, the petitioners have illegally entered into the flats for which the respondent No.1 has already lodged a report dated 26.02.2020 with the concerned police station. He, therefore, submits that the petitioners are not entitled for equitable relief, even otherwise also. (Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:15:40 PM)
(5 of 5) [CW-3103/2020] Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
The photo copies of the Rojnamcha dated 20.02.2020 and the report dated 26.02.2020 are taken on record.
The petitioners have alternative efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the Act, 2002 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal against the order dated 27.12.2019 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. No such exceptional circumstance could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner which could persuade this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction inspite of availability of alternative remedy of appeal to the petitioners; more so, when they have approached this Court against the order dated 27.12.2019 with inordinate delay when the dispute pertains to interim relief.
Even otherwise also, as per the Rojnamcha dated 20.02.2020, possession of the flats in question has already been taken over by the respondent No.1 with the police help in pursuance of the order dated 22.10.2019 and the question as to whether the petitioners are still in legal possession of the flats as claimed by them, cannot be gone into by this Court being highly disputed question of fact, in its writ jurisdiction.
Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Sudha/336 (Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:15:40 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)