Full Text
Translation output
C
07.09.2011
Present: Mr.Alok Gupta, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.D.V.Khatri, Advocate for Vijaya Bank.
CM No.13221/2011
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
+ WP (C) No.6558/2011
* The borrowers availed of loan facilities from Vijaya Bank and Union Bank of India. The property in question being property no.13, Pocket A-2, Second Floor, Sector 15, Rohini, Delhi-110085 admeasuring 60 square metres was given as security, but under different chains of title. The third chain of title is in favour of the petitioner. Thus, it is a case where a fraud has been perpetuated and the borrowers are stated to be in custody.
The aforementioned two banks filed recovery proceedings before the DRT. They issued notices under the Securitization &
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act').
The petitioner filed SA No.75/2008 seeking to impugn-both the notices by impleading both banks in the same SA where interim orders were granted in favour of the petitioner.
The original documents relating to all the three transactions are in the custody of the police, which is investigating the matter.
WPCNo.6558/2011 Page 1 of3
2011:DHC:18079-DB r
V
It appears that on 09.08.2011, a prayer was made by the counsel for the Vijaya Bank before the DRT in the SA that the property in issue should be permitted to be sold, and that the value which is expected to be realized from sale of the said property is likely to be much more than the outstandings due to both the banks. The DRT has permitted the same.
We may notice that the counsel for the Union Bank of India
•r joined the proceeding only after the order had been passed and was consequently apprised of the order, whereby Vijaya Bank.had been permitted to sell the property in question. As a post script, a further direction was passed to the effect that the representative of the
Union Bank of India may also be present when the property in issue is sold. Furthermore, Union Bank of India was permitted to bring buyers offering a better price for the secured asset in question.
It is the aforesaid aspect which has been impugned by the petitioner in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
We fail to appreciate how such an order could have been passed by the DRT without disposing of the SA itself. The SA was not disposed of as it was possibly awaiting the result of the investigation being carried out by the police authorities regarding the three chains of title. If the aforesaid two banks are victims of fraud then the petitioner may also be a victim of the fraud. The documents of, WPC No. 6558/2011 Page 2 of3
07.09.2011
Present: Mr.Alok Gupta, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.D.V.Khatri, Advocate for Vijaya Bank.
CM No.13221/2011
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
+ WP (C) No.6558/2011
* The borrowers availed of loan facilities from Vijaya Bank and Union Bank of India. The property in question being property no.13, Pocket A-2, Second Floor, Sector 15, Rohini, Delhi-110085 admeasuring 60 square metres was given as security, but under different chains of title. The third chain of title is in favour of the petitioner. Thus, it is a case where a fraud has been perpetuated and the borrowers are stated to be in custody.
The aforementioned two banks filed recovery proceedings before the DRT. They issued notices under the Securitization &
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act').
The petitioner filed SA No.75/2008 seeking to impugn-both the notices by impleading both banks in the same SA where interim orders were granted in favour of the petitioner.
The original documents relating to all the three transactions are in the custody of the police, which is investigating the matter.
WPCNo.6558/2011 Page 1 of3
2011:DHC:18079-DB r
V
It appears that on 09.08.2011, a prayer was made by the counsel for the Vijaya Bank before the DRT in the SA that the property in issue should be permitted to be sold, and that the value which is expected to be realized from sale of the said property is likely to be much more than the outstandings due to both the banks. The DRT has permitted the same.
We may notice that the counsel for the Union Bank of India
•r joined the proceeding only after the order had been passed and was consequently apprised of the order, whereby Vijaya Bank.had been permitted to sell the property in question. As a post script, a further direction was passed to the effect that the representative of the
Union Bank of India may also be present when the property in issue is sold. Furthermore, Union Bank of India was permitted to bring buyers offering a better price for the secured asset in question.
It is the aforesaid aspect which has been impugned by the petitioner in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
We fail to appreciate how such an order could have been passed by the DRT without disposing of the SA itself. The SA was not disposed of as it was possibly awaiting the result of the investigation being carried out by the police authorities regarding the three chains of title. If the aforesaid two banks are victims of fraud then the petitioner may also be a victim of the fraud. The documents of, WPC No. 6558/2011 Page 2 of3
at least, one of the banks would have been fraudulently made and, thus, the said bank may not be able to enforce rights under the
SARFAESI Act. This aspect is still being investigated. The order has been passed ignoring the earlier order passed by the DRT itself on
14.07.2008 restraining the bank from putting the property in issue to sale since the 10 had yet to submit a report and it was not known as to which set of title documents were genuine.
7\The DRT should have awaited the result of the investigation in this behalf.
We thus set aside the directions contained in the impugned order dated 09.08.2011 permitting the Vijaya Bank to go ahead with the sale of the property. The DRT should await the result of the investigation being carried out by the police authorities whereafter it will examine the issue as to how the property is to be dealt with.
The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
CM No.13220/2011
No further directions are called for on this application.
The application stands disposed of.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,J.
\AJ
SEPTEMBER 07, 2011 RAJINTSHAKDFTeK^ dm
WPC No. 6558/2011 Page 3 of3
SARFAESI Act. This aspect is still being investigated. The order has been passed ignoring the earlier order passed by the DRT itself on
14.07.2008 restraining the bank from putting the property in issue to sale since the 10 had yet to submit a report and it was not known as to which set of title documents were genuine.
7\The DRT should have awaited the result of the investigation in this behalf.
We thus set aside the directions contained in the impugned order dated 09.08.2011 permitting the Vijaya Bank to go ahead with the sale of the property. The DRT should await the result of the investigation being carried out by the police authorities whereafter it will examine the issue as to how the property is to be dealt with.
The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
CM No.13220/2011
No further directions are called for on this application.
The application stands disposed of.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,J.
\AJ
SEPTEMBER 07, 2011 RAJINTSHAKDFTeK^ dm
WPC No. 6558/2011 Page 3 of3
JUDGMENT