Siddhartha Jain vs Rajeev Agarwal & Anr on 17 March, 2021
Ritu Gupta & Anr. Vs. Usha Dhand & Ors, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4628.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.79 seconds)Documents citing
Ritu Gupta & Anr. vs Usha Dhand & Ors. on 19 November, 2013
Uco Bank vs Rakesh Bhanot And Anr on 11 August, 2021
by them from a society who had mortgaged the same after transfer in favour
of the plaintiffs. This is not the situation in the instant case. Ritu Gupta
(supra) is also distinguishable as therein, the claim made in the plaint was
that the title deeds submitted as security were in fact forged documents
because the plaintiffs were the actual holders thereof.
Inder Singh vs Branch Manager on 6 August, 2022
.........The learned ADJ, after hearing arguments on the
preliminary issue, vide thhe impugned judgment held
the suit to be not maintainable, reasoning (i) that the
appellant/plaintiff had not sought any relief of
declaration that the defendants had played any fraud
on her or of declaration of the other title deeds as
forged and fabricated; (ii) that Section 34 of the
SARFAESI Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court to
entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any
matter which a Debt Recovery Tribunal or the
Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under the Act to
determine and from granting injunction in respect of
any action taken in pursuance to the SARFAESI Act or
the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and financial
Institutions Act, 1993 (DRT Act); (iii) that Section
14(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 also bars the
grant of any injunction restraining institution or
prosecuting any proceeding in a Court not subordinate
to that from which the injunction is sought; (iv) DRT is
not subordinate to the Court of Additional District
Judge; (v) DRT has the jurisdiction to entertain the
CS No. 15676/16
Inder Singh Vs. Branch Manager, Indian Bank
14
disputes as claimed in the suit and to grant reliefs as
claimed in the suit; (vi) judgment dated 19th November,
2013 of this Court in Ritu Gupta V. Usha Dhand (2013)
205 DLT 218 cited by appellant/plaintiff was on
different facts and not applicable; (vii) that the sale
deed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff is subsequent
to the initiation of proceedings before the DRT; (viii) if
the appellant/plaintiff at the time of having the sale
deed executed in her favour had no knowledge of the
facts as pleaded in the plaint then she had been
defrauded but which was not pleaded by her;
conversely if the appellant/plaintiff was having
knowledge of the facts she shall in any case be not
entitled to any relief having not acted bona fide; (ix)
reliance was placed on (a) Mardia Chemicals V. UOI
(2004) 4 SCC 311, (b) Nahar Industrial Enterprises
Ltd. V. Hongkong Shanghai Banking Corp. (2009) 8
SCC 646; and, (c) Jagdish Singh V. Heeralal (2004) 1
SCC 479; and, (x) that the jurisdiction of the Civil
Court to entertain the suit was barred by Section 34 of
the SARFAESI Act read with Section 9 of the CPC.......
Ashok Kumar Raizada vs The Bank Of Rajasthan & Anr on 9 December, 2013
16. Similarly this Court in the case of Ritu Gupta & Anr. vs. Usha
Dhand & Ors. in CS(OS) 188/2011 in para 16 held as follows:-
Golf Technologies (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs Axis Bank Ltd. & Ors. on 29 May, 2015
Lastly, in
Ritu Gupta (supra), the loan was based upon mortgage of title deeds
but the title deeds forming the basis of such mortgage themselves
were questioned as being fraudulent. The defendants/Banks therein
had also disputed that the sale deeds executed by defendant No.1
therein in favour of her sons were prima facie bad in law. However, in
the present case, the allegation of fraud is premised only on the letter
dated 31.12.2012, which allegedly authorised the Bank to transfer an
amount of Rs.19.89 crores to Tulip. The allegation is simply of
signatures on blank letter heads which was allegedly misused by the
Bank. It is a standard classic defence and no fraud had taken place as
in the cases discussed hereinabove. There are no complicated facts
leading to the allegation of fraud. Therefore, the plaintiffs‟ grievances
could well be agitated before the Tribunal in a proceeding under
Section 17 of the Act.
Neha Aggarwal vs Pnb Housing Finance Ltd & Ors on 7 July, 2016
17. That takes me to Ritu Gupta supra and no appeal whereagainst is found
to have been preferred. This Court therein was concerned with a suit for
declaration of title to immovable property and for declaration of the sale deeds
on the basis whereof the banks, defendants therein, were claiming to be secured
creditors as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the
defendants including the banks from dealing with the property.
Vidya Sagar vs Smt. Raj Dulari & Ors on 27 August, 2016
8. Regarding issue of jurisdiction of Civil Court, it is argued that in
a suit like the present one, jurisdiction of civil court very much lies as such
rights can be determined and enforced only by Civil Courts. (Reference is
made to the judgments titled as Ram Prakash Mehra Vs. Union Bank
of India & Ors, DOD 31 October,2011; Ritu Gupta Vs. Usha Dhand &
Ors, DOD 19th November,2013; Krishna Devi & Ors. Vs. Kedarnath
Vs. Ors.; Vyshya Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. G. Keerthana & Ors.
DOD 25.10.2007; Arasa Kumar & Anr. Vs. Nallammal &Ors.
19.03.2004; Maradia Chemicals Vs. UOI(2004)4 SCC 311).
Punjab National Bank vs Ms. Bharti Sehgal And Anr. on 2 November, 2017
12. Similarly this Court in the case of Ritu Gupta & Anr. vs. Usha Dhand
& Ors. in 205(2013)DLT218 in para 16 held as follows:-
Shri Ram Housing Finance Ltd vs Roshini Devi on 24 December, 2025
(d) In Ritu Gupta v. Usha Dhand24, a Coordinate Bench of this Court
considered the Supreme Court's decision in Jagdish Singh was to
be distinguishable on facts, as no allegation of fraud had been
raised in that case.
Kiranjit Singh Bawa vs State Bank Of India And Another on 5 February, 2019
Further reference has
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 10-03-2019 02:03:31 :::
RSA-9835 of 2018 -3-
been made to judgments of this Court Jammu and Kashmir Bank vs. Jai
Lakshmi Dravid 2006(3) RCR (Civil) 835, Punjab National Bank vs.
Ram Kishan 2014(3) RCR (Civil) 115, Union Bank of India and another
vs. Om Parkash Khurana Civil Revision No. 9060 of 2017 decided on
24.5.2018, Udaibir Singh vs. Punjab National Bank and others Civil
Revision No. 4598 of 2016 decided on 13.12.2017 and judgment of the
Delhi High Court Ritu Gupta vs. Usha Dhand and others 2013(46) RCR
(Civil) 490 wherein the courts have relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court Mardia Chemicals Limited etc.'s case (supra).