Full Text
Judgmentpronounced on: 9.3.2018
PANKAJ VIRDI Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja with Ms. Chandrika Gupta, Advs.
Through: Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Adv.
CM No.8619/2018
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) No.2084/2018 & CM No.8618/2018 vir-; 2. This is a writ petition, in which the substantive relief sought is, that a mandamus be issued to the respondent bank to de-seal the property, described as No.CA-9B, Ground Floor, DDA Janta Flats, Hari Nagar, New Delhi (in short "subject property").
3. It is not disputed by Mr. Aneja, who appears for the petitioner, that the subject property has been sealed pursuant to the order passed by the competent court under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assests and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short "Act"). W.P. (C)No.2084/2018 Pg.l of[2] 2018:DHC:8571 % %
4. I am further informed by Mr. Aneja that apetition under Section 17 of the Act has been filed with the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which is, pending consideration and is listed for hearing today. 4.[1] Mr. Aneja, however, says that the petitioner has paid a substantial part of the outstanding liability and therefore, regularization of the petitioner's account was mandated.
5. Furthermore, Mr. Aneja says that the petitioner's child is, shortly, slated to sit for her school examination and therefore, de-sealing of the subject property was critical.
6. According to me, if a representation is made to the respondent bank, it could consider the plea having regard to the totality of circumstances.
7. This plea, in my view, could also be advanced by the petitioner before the concerned Debt Recovery Tribunal, before which, petition under Section 17 ofthe Act is pending.
8. I may indicate at this stage that Mr. Raj'esh Sharma, who appears for the respondent banlc, on advance notice, says that as of today, a sum of Rs.l[5] lakhis (approximately) is payable bythejpetitipner. 8.[1] Mr. Aneja, however, disputes the amount of liability put forth by learned counsel for the respondent bank, though, liability per se is not disputed.
9. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
10. Dasti. ^ RAJIV SHAKDHER, J MARCH 09, 2018