Bombay High Court
Gurpreet Singh Alagh vs Housing Development Finance ... on 11 September, 2025
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: M. S. Karnik, N. R. Borkar
2025:BHC-OS:15016-DB
wpl.27799-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.27799 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.27896 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 31511 OF 2024
WITH
IN PERSON APPLICATION (L) NO.27957 OF 2024
Gurpreet Singh Alagh,
Age-46 years, Occupation : Actor/unemployed,
Indian Inhabitant,
Correspondence address A/23, 1st floor,
Jeewan Park, Pankha Road, Janak Puri,
New Delhi - 110059. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. Housing Development Finance
Corporation Bank Ltd (HDFC BANK LTD.)
A Company incorporated under the
provision of the Companies Act having
its registered office at HDFC Bank
House, Senapati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel West, Mumbai - 400 013.
2. Shri Suresh Kumar Arora
Aged 71 years, Occupation Private/Retired
Service, Adult Indian inhabitant
Residing at flat no. 1401,
Yogi Paradise CHS Ltd., Yogi Nagar,
Link Road, Borivali, Mumbai -400091.
3. Dr. Smt. Urvashi Arora,
Ages 71 years, Occupation Doctor
Adult Indian Inhabitant residing
at flat no. 1401, Yogi Paradise CHS Ltd.,
Yogi Nagar, Link Road,
Borivali, Mumbai 400067 .. Respondents
PMB 1
wpl.27799-2024.doc
------------
Mr. Gurpreet Singh Alagh, Petitioner-in-person is present.
Ms. Dipali M. Jadhav i/b. SC Legal, for Respondent No.1-
HDFC.
------------
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
N. R. BORKAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 18th JUNE, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2025
ORDER (PER M. S. KARNIK, J.) :
1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner seeks the following reliefs :-
"a. Recognition of Ownership: That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to acknowledge and to direct DRT-2 Mumbai and the City Civil Court at Dindoshi to recognize the Petitioner's full ownership rights over Suit Flats No. 1 and 2 when adjudicating TSA No. 3/2024 and SC No. 108/2011 after verifying. Source of funds used for purchasing suit flats.
b. Time-Bound Disposal of TSA no. 3/2024: That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the DRT-2 Mumbai to expeditious disposal of TSA No.3/2024 within one month to prevent further prejudice to the Petitioner's rights.
c. Time-Bound Disposal of SC No. 108/2011: That Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the City Civil Court at Dindoshi to expeditious disposal of SC No. 108/2011 within two months to prevent further prejudice to the Petitioner's rights.
d. Prevention of Further Delays and Consequences for Non-Compliance: That Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct PMB 2 wpl.27799-2024.doc Respondents Nos. 1, 2, and 3 to cooperate fully in the proceedings without causing unnecessary delays. Should they fail to do so, matters be decided on available facts and the respondents shall be held liable for contempt of court and shall bear the heavy costs.
e. Consider prayers of compensation and interest:
That Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct DRT-2, Mumbai and the City Civil Court at Dindoshi to consider and pass this Petitioner's prayers of compensation and or interest for 14- 15 years, on merit as per law.
f. Compensation: Pass appropriate orders for compensation for the violation of the Petitioner's rights under Articles 300A and 14 of the Constitution of India, endured over the past 14-15 years.
g. Costs and Other Reliefs: That the costs of this petition be provided for, and h. Any Other Relief: this Hon'ble Court may grant any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case."
2. The brief facts of the case as set out by the Petitioner during the course of his arguments and by a written case note are referred. The Petitioner appeared in person. We had indicated to the Petitioner that legal aid assistance could be provided to him. However, the Petitioner insisted that he would like to argue in person. We found it difficult to decipher the facts in a chronological sequence from the body of the Petition and hence we have placed reliance on the case note relied upon by the Petitioner. PMB 3
wpl.27799-2024.doc
3. It is the Petitioner's case that he purchased under construction Flat No.1, jointly owned by the Petitioner and his then wife, and Flat No.2, jointly owned by the Petitioner, his then wife and her mother. The Petitioner claims that the flats were purchased in December 2006 and May 2007 entirely using Petitioner's income only.
4. Respondent No.1 - Housing Development Finance Corporation Bank Ltd. ("Bank", for short) sanctioned housing loan of Rs.50 lakhs by sanction letter dated 30 th November 2006. The Bank vide loan recall notice dated 31 st January 2008 informed the Petitioner to pay the due amount and incidental charges within 7 days. The Bank issued demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("SARFAESI Act", for short) dated 18th February 2009 to pay due amount within 60 days, failing which action will be taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The demand notice was published in two newspapers on 28th December 2009. According to the PMB 4 wpl.27799-2024.doc Petitioner, the Bank had just published the names of defaulters without any details regarding the default amount. The Petitioner claims that he updated his contact details with the Bank on 11th May 2010 in view of matrimonial disputes. The Bank by e-mail dated 30 th June 2010 replied that the loan is declared NPA and demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act has been published.
5. The Petitioner replied on 30th June 2010 expressing his inability to repay the loan, consenting to recovery and requesting information regarding the same. Another e-mail was sent by the Petitioner on 24th July 2010. The Bank informed the Petitioner by a notice dated 6th October 2010 that the concerned officials will be visiting the secured asset (Flat No.1) for taking possession. The authorized officer visited the mortgaged property on 15 th October 2010 to take possession. The Bank filed a suit on 6 th July 2012 in this Court against the developer of the suit property restricting him from creating third party interest. This Court granted status quo till 2017. Due to enhancement in pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, the case was transferred to the City Civil Court. The City Civil Court rejected the PMB 5 wpl.27799-2024.doc Interim Application on the ground of statutory bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act.
6. The Bank filed Securitisation Application No.634 of 2018 before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM Court of Mumbai) to take possession of the secured assets. Respondent No.2, who is a purchaser of the suit Flat No.2 in March 2010 from the Petitioner challenged the measures of Respondent No.1-Bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I ("DRT-I", for short). It is the contention of the Petitioner that stay was granted by the DRT-I to the measures.
7. The Bank made an application for possession of secured asset which was allowed by order dated 2 nd January 2020. Physical possession was taken by the Bank on 17 th February 2020. The Bank published notice regarding the same in two local newspapers on 19th February 2020.
8. By a letter dated 22nd February 2020 the Petitioner inquired with the Bank about the loan amount along with interest that the Bank is going to recover from the sale of secured asset. The Bank informed the Petitioner on 25 th February 2020 that an amount of Rs.1.71 Crore was to be recovered from him. The Petitioner therefore filed PMB 6 wpl.27799-2024.doc Securitisation Application No.30 of 2020 in DRT-I against the Bank under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act on 16 th March 2020. The same was allowed on 19 th July 2020 directing the Bank to calculate the liability of the Petitioner after deducting the interest from 1st July 2010 to 17th February 2020.
9. During the pendency of the Securitisation Application No.30 of 2020, the Bank sold a secured asset through auction in September 2020 and issued sale certificate to successful bidder on 12th December 2020. The Bank claims that the Petitioner did not challenge the auction in the above Securitisation Application No.30 of 2020. The Petitioner therefore filed Securitisation Application No.3 of 2024 on 7th February 2024 before DRT-II under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging the measures under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. In the reply filed before the DRT, the Bank claims that the secured asset was sold for Rs.1,38,50,000/- with balance amount of Rs.60,35,717/- due and recoverable as on 1st May 2023.
10. The Petitioner submitted that Securitisation Application No.3 of 2024 pending before the DRT-II Mumbai PMB 7 wpl.27799-2024.doc and the Suit No.108 of 2011 at the City Civil Court, Dindoshi needs to be immediately decided to safeguard the constitutional rights of the Petitioner under Articles 300A and 14 of the Constitution of India and prevent further financial harm due to delays caused by the Respondents. It is submitted that since February 2009, the Bank has been recovering the home loan. The Bank was not justified in delaying taking the possession and auctioning the suit Flat No.1 until December 2020 which has caused prejudice to the Petitioner. This despite the Petitioner consenting to the auction. It is submitted that this delay caused the outstanding dues to escalate from Rs.50 lakhs to Rs.2 Crores, with penalty interest accumulating at 18% since 1st January 2009 for no fault on the part of the Petitioner. He submits that the Respondent No.1-Bank is stalling the decision of the TSA No.3 of 2024 at DRT-II Mumbai.
11. The Petitioner pointed out that due to these delays, he had to contest around 68 matters in the Court and this resulted in ruining his acting career. The Petitioner is burdened with interest and society maintenance fees PMB 8 wpl.27799-2024.doc amounting to approximately Rs.70 lakhs. This, according to him, violates his rights under Articles 300A and 14 of the Constitution of India.
12. The Petitioner seeks a time-bound resolution of Section 17 application being TSA No.3 of 2024 at DRT-II Mumbai, and the Civil Suit being SC No.108 of 2011 at City Civil Court at Dindoshi with acknowledgment of the Petitioner's status as the true legal owner of suit Flat Nos.1 and 2, purchased only from his contributions and finances provided.
13. Having heard the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1, it is not possible for us to decide on the title of the Petitioner and resolve ownership disputes in respect of the said flats in this Petition in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The present Petition involves several disputed questions of fact. The Petitioner has relied upon several decisions in support of his contentions. However, the relief prayed by the Petitioner entails a fact finding exercise which only the Court of competent jurisdiction can go into. Furthermore, the measures resorted to by the Bank under the provisions PMB 9 wpl.27799-2024.doc of SARFAESI Act are already challenged by the Petitioner by way of a Securitisation Application before the DRT. There is no scope for interference in the present petition when the Petitioner has already resorted to the remedies provided under the SARFAESI Act.
14. In the facts of the present case, in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India we are not inclined to direct the City Civil Court at Dindoshi to expedite SC No.108 of 2011. It is open for the Petitioner to make such a request to the competent Court or resort to appropriate remedies to expedite the suit. We can only request the DRT-II Mumbai to consider expediting TSA No.3 of 2024 if a request is made by the Petitioner.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed. It is open for the Petitioner to pursue the remedies available to him. It is made clear that we have not made any observations on the merits of the respective contentions.
PMB 10
wpl.27799-2024.doc
16. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, pending Interim Applications also stand disposed of.
(N. R. BORKAR, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
PMB 11
Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/09/2025 19:48:54