True Court CopyTMDRJ


W.P. (C) 2067/2019 and C.M. Appl. 9676/2019

Decided On: 11.10.2019

Appellants: Manoj Kumar Pruthi Vs. Respondent: Magma Housing Finance

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dr. S. Muralidhar and Talwant Singh


Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.

1. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is heard finally.

2. The present petition is directed against an order dated 15th January, 2019, passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal ('DRAT'), rejecting the Petitioner's application being LA. No. 450/2018, seeking waiver of the pre-deposit in terms of Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).

3. The background facts are that the Respondent demanded from the present Petitioner a sum of Rs. 84,17,558/- by way of a demand notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act. The DRAT has rejected the application on the ground that Section 18 (2) of the SARFAESI Act makes no distinction between an appeal filed against an interim order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal ('DRT') and a final order.

4. The Petitioner initially was involved in a dispute with his father and a suit C.S. (OS) No. 863/2005 was filed in this Court by his father seeking the Petitioner's eviction from the property at H-29, NDSE Part-I, New Delhi-110049 ('the property in question'). Ultimately, the said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution, after the demise of the Petitioner's father on 25th December, 2007.

5. The Petitioner on 5th June, 2014 received notice from one Mr. Arun Kumar, who is stated to be the Sole Arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings commenced under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act') by the Respondent. The Petitioner claims to have not been aware of any dispute between him and the Respondent.

6. The case of the Respondent, however, was that the Petitioner had borrowed, as principal borrower, a sum of Rs. 60 lacs in 2005. The Petitioner, however, denies having borrowed any such money.

7. The Respondent filed O.M.P. No. 16/2015 in this Court under Section 9 of the Act seeking injunction against the property in question, purportedly mortgaged with the Respondent. When this petition came up for hearing before this Court on 26th May 2015, a preliminary objection was raised by the present Petitioner that the signatures on the loan agreement produced by the Respondent were not that of the Petitioner. The Petitioner asked the Court to direct the Respondent herein to produce the original loan agreement.

8. Meanwhile, a second O.M.P. (I) No. 162/2015 under Section 9 of the Act was filed by the Respondent against the present Petitioner for coercive action against the property in question. In the said petition, the Petitioner herein filed I.A. No. 9808/2015 for directions to the Respondent to produce the original loan agreement, together with supporting documents and asked that the specimen signatures of the present Petitioner be sent to the Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory ('CFSL') to seek a report as regards the genuineness of the signatures on the said loan agreement. He also prayed that the already pending O.M.P. No. 16/2015 be kept in abeyance.

9. This application was considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court and a detailed order was passed on 27th July, 2016, directing the present Respondent to file the original documents and the Petitioner to give his specimen signatures as well as a copy of his passport, which along with the original documents would be sent to the CFSL for purposes of comparison thereof with ........