Full Text
Translation output
$-8 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)11166/2017
M/S.ESTERA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED Petitioner
Through Mr. Vineet Malhotra, Mr. Prashant Kumar and Mr. Shubhendu Kaushik, Advocates.
W.P.(C)11166/2017
M/S.ESTERA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED Petitioner
Through Mr. Vineet Malhotra, Mr. Prashant Kumar and Mr. Shubhendu Kaushik, Advocates.
VERSUS
MRS.GEETA DATT AND ANR. Respondents
Through Mr.H.L.Tiku,Senior Advocate along with Mr. S.K. Nanda, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Amit Sethi and Mr. Ishan Khanna, Advocates for respondent
No.2.
Through Mr.H.L.Tiku,Senior Advocate along with Mr. S.K. Nanda, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Amit Sethi and Mr. Ishan Khanna, Advocates for respondent
No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
14.03.2018 The present petition assails an order dated 22"*^ November, 2017, rendered by the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi(DRAT) in Appeal No. 474/2016 titled as ''Geeta Dutt vs. Canara Bank & Anr."
(hereinafter referred to as the 'subject appeal')whereby in terms ofa prima facie view arrived at by the Tribunal, the auction purchaser who is the petitioner herein, was directed to deposit with the Registrar the unearned increase amount of Rs.12.65 crores, with a further direction that in case the deposit was not made within a week,the auction purchaser would become liable to surrender the property in his occupation.
W.p.
(C)11166/2017 page I of2 2018:DHC:8551-DB The petitioner is aggrieved not only by the said direction but also by the primafacie view taken by the DRAT to the effect that the sale was conducted by illegal and arbitrary exercise of the power by the Recovery
Officer in collusion with the auction purchaser.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are ofthe view that the direction to deposit the unearned increase amount at the preliminary stage ofthe hearing of the appeal cannot be sustained. The direction to so depositthe unearned increase is,therefore,set aside at this stage.
Insofar as, the prima facie view arrived at by the Tribunal is concerned,needless to state that the same is only aprimafacie view and that the Tribunal would hear the petitioner in this behalf on the merits of the subject appeal before finally adjudicating upon it.
With the above direction,the writ petition is disposed of.
MARCH 14,2018 rs SIDDHARTH MRIDUL,J deepaIsharma,j
IV.p.
(C)11166/2017 page 2of2 2018:DHC:8551-DB
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
14.03.2018 The present petition assails an order dated 22"*^ November, 2017, rendered by the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi(DRAT) in Appeal No. 474/2016 titled as ''Geeta Dutt vs. Canara Bank & Anr."
(hereinafter referred to as the 'subject appeal')whereby in terms ofa prima facie view arrived at by the Tribunal, the auction purchaser who is the petitioner herein, was directed to deposit with the Registrar the unearned increase amount of Rs.12.65 crores, with a further direction that in case the deposit was not made within a week,the auction purchaser would become liable to surrender the property in his occupation.
W.p.
(C)11166/2017 page I of2 2018:DHC:8551-DB The petitioner is aggrieved not only by the said direction but also by the primafacie view taken by the DRAT to the effect that the sale was conducted by illegal and arbitrary exercise of the power by the Recovery
Officer in collusion with the auction purchaser.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are ofthe view that the direction to deposit the unearned increase amount at the preliminary stage ofthe hearing of the appeal cannot be sustained. The direction to so depositthe unearned increase is,therefore,set aside at this stage.
Insofar as, the prima facie view arrived at by the Tribunal is concerned,needless to state that the same is only aprimafacie view and that the Tribunal would hear the petitioner in this behalf on the merits of the subject appeal before finally adjudicating upon it.
With the above direction,the writ petition is disposed of.
MARCH 14,2018 rs SIDDHARTH MRIDUL,J deepaIsharma,j
IV.p.
(C)11166/2017 page 2of2 2018:DHC:8551-DB
JUDGMENT