Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 16th February, 2023
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Mr. Mahip Datta Parashar, Ms. Sanya Lamba, Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Aditya Malhotra, Advocate for R-
1.
Mr. Palav Saxena, Advocate for R-2 to R-5
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (ORAL)
The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).
JUDGMENT
1. Issue notice. The learned counsel named above accepts the notice on behalf of their respective respondents.
2. At joint request, this petition has been taken up for disposal.
3. This petition seeks the following reliefs:-
I. To quash and set aside the order dated 13.05.2022 passed by
DRT-II New Delhi in SA No. 128/2022 titled as "Meenu Raisurana vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited & Ors. " and/ or
II. Direct the Ld.
DRT-II Delhi to take up the Application seeking vacation of stay preferred by the Petitioner Bank in SA No. 128/2022 on the next date of hearing and dispose off the same in a time bound matter;
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks possession of the mortgaged property and submits that under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner is entitled to take possession of the mortgaged property i.e., B-384, 2nd Floor, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, 110065. However, the impugned order passed by the DRT-II on 13.05.2022 has order status quo. Their application for vacation of the interim order has not been heard because of vacancy in the office of the Presiding Officer of the said DRT.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that reference in the impugned order, to an order passed by this court on 18.09.2019 in CS(OS) 228/2019 is erroneous because according to the petitioner, that suit was a collusive one. Be that as it may, all these arguments would be available to the petitioner to agitate before the DRT.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amounts due to the petitioner, have now totalled up to Rs.45 crores and the monies are pending since 08.06.2016; that over seven years is a long time for the large sums of money to be blocked in litigation and the matter should reach to some conclusion.
7. The case is listed before the DRT-III on 21.03.2023, which is presently holding charge of the DRT-II. In the aforesaid circumstances, the parties would request DRT-III to take up the matter on expedited basis and dispose of the petitioner’s application at the earliest possible, preferably within ten weeks.
8. The learned counsel for the parties assure the Court that they will assist the learned DRT in the expeditious disposal of the case and will not seek any adjournments.
9. The petition is disposed-off on the above terms.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J FEBRUARY 16, 2023/k/pj