HC:618-DB , ,MANU/DE/0282/2017Indira Banerjee#A.K. Chawla#21DE1010Judgment/OrderAD#DHC#MANUIndira Banerjee,Banks#BanksDELHI2017-2-1026281,26283,26262,26277 -->


True Court CopyTM


W.P. (C) 11766/2016 & CM No. 46429/2016

Decided On: 01.02.2017

Appellants: Manju Devi and Ors. Vs. Respondent: R.B.L. Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Indira Banerjee and A.K. Chawla


Indira Banerjee, J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged an order dated 05.12.2016 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, in Misc. Appeal No. 460/2016, against an order dated 16.11.2016, passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi, in an application filed by the petitioners under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, hereinafter referred to as the 'Securitisation Act' being SA No. 205/2016, whereby the order of status quo in respect of the property being the subject matter of the said application has been withdrawn.

2. By the order impugned, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal has directed each of the appellants, being the writ petitioners, to deposit 50% of the amount demanded by the Respondent Bank from one Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, in his capacity as the sole proprietor of Asian Dairy Milk Food Company.

3. The said Ajay Kumar Gupta, being the proprietor of Asian Dairy Milk Food Company, had obtained loans from the Respondent Bank for his proprietary Concern. By way of security for the loans advanced by the Respondent Bank, to his proprietary concern, of the said Ajay Kumar Gupta mortgaged to the Bank, his property at D-534, out of Khasra No. 929/537, situated at Village Saboli in abadi of D-Block, Gali No. 7, Ashok Nagar, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi- 110093, hereinafter referred to as the said premises.

4. The petitioners claim to be the purchasers of shop rooms/rooms situated at the said premises. They claim that they purchased the shop rooms/rooms for valuable consideration, long before the mortgage in respect of the said premises was created.

5. The petitioners, or at least some of them, are in possession of documents to show that they have been in possession of demarcated shop rooms/rooms at the said premises for a long time and in any case, long before creation of the mortgage in respect of the said premises in favour of the Respondent Bank in 2012.

6. In support of their claim of having purchased shop rooms/rooms at the said premises, the petitioners have relied on agreements for sale executed by the owner Ajay Kumar Gupta in their favour, irrevocable General Powers of Attorney, possession letters, receipts, deeds of Will and affidavits.

7. Admittedly the shop rooms/rooms were not conveyed to the petitioners by execution of registered deeds of conveyance. There was, therefore, no valid transfer of ownership of the shop rooms/rooms to the petitioners.

8. The said premises being secured in favour of the bank, the Bank invoked the provisions of the Securitization Act and attempted to take possession of the said premises, whereupon the petitioners filed applications under Section 17 of the Securitization Act in the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi.

9. Initially, status quo was directed to be maintained in respect of the said premises. The order of status quo was later vacated by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, vide the order dated 16.11.2016, against which the petitioners appealed before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

10. On behalf of the Respondent Bank it is urged that the proceedings initiated by the........