Full Text
Translation output
'
! HIGH COURT OF DELHI
EFA(OS) 1/2013
MONEYLINE CREDIT LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Sachin Sangwan, Advocate.
! HIGH COURT OF DELHI
EFA(OS) 1/2013
MONEYLINE CREDIT LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Sachin Sangwan, Advocate.
VERSUS
GURBACHAN SINGH TALWAR
Through
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
07.02.2013 EFA (OS) No.1/2013 ..... Respondent
CM No.2080/2013 (For Condonation of Delay of22 days in filing the appeal)
CM No.2081/2013 (For Condonation of Delay of65 days in refiling the appeal)
The only reason set out for non-filing ofthe appeal within time is stated to be non-availability of the concerned officer of the appellant/company in town who was to give approval to the counsel to file the appeal. This can hardly by be a ground to condone the delay. Not only that, thereafter there is delay of 65 days in re-filing the appeal and the standard excuse of the file being misplaced in the office of the counsel is sought to be made before us.
A reading of the application shows that the nomenclature of the case was incorrect and power ofattorney was not filed.
We thus see no good reason to condone the delay in either filing or re-filing ofthe appeal.
EFA (OS) No.l/2013 Page 1 of3 2013:DHC:6666-DB
We have also examined the merits of the controversy. The appellant has an award in its favour and sought attachment of two properties which were alleged to be mortgaged. Qua one of the properties, the appellant has received monies and released it in favour of the objector, but the full amount of claim is not satisfied. Insofar as the property in question in the present appeal is concerned being flat No.H-95, G.S. Apartment, Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi-110085, the attachment order has been lifted by the learned single
Judge as one Mr.Gurcharan Singh Talwar was able to establish that he was the bona fide purchaser of the property. It appears from the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and what is recorded in the impugned order that a fraud has been played by the borrower as there are more than one set of original documents.
It is the say of the learned counsel for the appellant that in fact there is one set of original documents with the appellant, one set with GE Money
Financial Services Limited from whom the borrower has availed of loan and the third set with Mr.Talwar, who has purchased the property. It is not known, there may be even more sets of original documents.
The aforesaid is a matter of criminal investigation as according to learned counsel for the appellant, a case for cheating has been made out and a complaint has already been made to the Economic Offences Wing which is investigating the matter. We would expect the Economic Offences
Wing/SHO of the concerned police station (stated to be K.N.Katju Marg) to enquire into the matter, find out as to how many original documents oftitle
EFA (OS) No.l/2013 Page 2 of3 / have been created by the borrower for either mortgaging or selling the property and on completion of investigation, take appropriate action in accordance with law.
The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.
Dasti to learned counsel for the appellant so that the SHO can be served with a copy ofthe order.
FEBRUARY 07, 2013 BFA (OS) No.l/2013 ~-- SANJAY KISHXN KAUL, J l
INDERMEET KAUR, J Page3of3
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
07.02.2013 EFA (OS) No.1/2013 ..... Respondent
CM No.2080/2013 (For Condonation of Delay of22 days in filing the appeal)
CM No.2081/2013 (For Condonation of Delay of65 days in refiling the appeal)
The only reason set out for non-filing ofthe appeal within time is stated to be non-availability of the concerned officer of the appellant/company in town who was to give approval to the counsel to file the appeal. This can hardly by be a ground to condone the delay. Not only that, thereafter there is delay of 65 days in re-filing the appeal and the standard excuse of the file being misplaced in the office of the counsel is sought to be made before us.
A reading of the application shows that the nomenclature of the case was incorrect and power ofattorney was not filed.
We thus see no good reason to condone the delay in either filing or re-filing ofthe appeal.
EFA (OS) No.l/2013 Page 1 of3 2013:DHC:6666-DB
We have also examined the merits of the controversy. The appellant has an award in its favour and sought attachment of two properties which were alleged to be mortgaged. Qua one of the properties, the appellant has received monies and released it in favour of the objector, but the full amount of claim is not satisfied. Insofar as the property in question in the present appeal is concerned being flat No.H-95, G.S. Apartment, Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi-110085, the attachment order has been lifted by the learned single
Judge as one Mr.Gurcharan Singh Talwar was able to establish that he was the bona fide purchaser of the property. It appears from the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and what is recorded in the impugned order that a fraud has been played by the borrower as there are more than one set of original documents.
It is the say of the learned counsel for the appellant that in fact there is one set of original documents with the appellant, one set with GE Money
Financial Services Limited from whom the borrower has availed of loan and the third set with Mr.Talwar, who has purchased the property. It is not known, there may be even more sets of original documents.
The aforesaid is a matter of criminal investigation as according to learned counsel for the appellant, a case for cheating has been made out and a complaint has already been made to the Economic Offences Wing which is investigating the matter. We would expect the Economic Offences
Wing/SHO of the concerned police station (stated to be K.N.Katju Marg) to enquire into the matter, find out as to how many original documents oftitle
EFA (OS) No.l/2013 Page 2 of3 / have been created by the borrower for either mortgaging or selling the property and on completion of investigation, take appropriate action in accordance with law.
The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.
Dasti to learned counsel for the appellant so that the SHO can be served with a copy ofthe order.
FEBRUARY 07, 2013 BFA (OS) No.l/2013 ~-- SANJAY KISHXN KAUL, J l
INDERMEET KAUR, J Page3of3
JUDGMENT