Beena Gupta vs Raipur Treasure Island Private Limited
2025 Latest Caselaw 2264 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Beena Gupta vs Raipur Treasure Island Private Limited on 5 March, 2025

                                                        1




                                                                          2025:CGHC:10734


                                                                                        NAFR

RAHUL
JHA
Digitally signed
by RAHUL JHA                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Date: 2025.03.06
18:37:39 +0530



                                             WPC No. 1246 of 2025

                   1 - Daljeet Singh Dhillon S/o Late Mohan Singh Dhillon Aged About 36 Years
                   R/o Near Dr. Rawlani Nursing Home, Katora Talab, Raipur Chhattisgarh


                                                                                 Petitioner(s)
                                                     versus
                   1 - Raipur Treasure Island Private Limited Through Its Director/ Promoter
                   Office At 6th Floor, Treasure Island 11, Tukoganj Main Road Indore - 452001
                   Madhya Pradesh
                   2 - Vraj Commercial Private Limited Through Its Director/ Promoter House
                   No. 63, Jalvihar Colony Raipur Chhattisgarh - 492001
                                                                                Respondent(s)

1 - Beena Gupta W/o Daulat Ram Gupta Aged About 73 Years R/o 19/784, Shanti Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Raipur Treasure Island Private Limited Through Its Director/ Promoter Office At 6th Floor, Treasure Island 11, Tukoganj Main Road Indore - 452001 Madhya Pradesh

2 - Vraj Commercial Private Limited Through Its Director/ Promoter House No. 63, Jalvihar Colony Raipur Chhattisgarh - 492001 Respondent(s)

1 - Surinder Singh Dhillon S/o Late Ashi Singh Dhillon Aged About 74 Years R/o Near Dr. Rawlani Nursing Home, Katora Talab, Raipur Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner(s)

Versus 1 - Raipur Treasure Island Private Limited Through Its Director/ Promoter Office At 6th Floor, Treasure Island 11, Tukoganj Main Road Indore - 452001 Madhya Pradesh 2 - Vraj Commercial Private Limited Through Its Director/ Promoter House No. 63, Jalvihar Colony Raipur Chhattisgarh - 492001 Respondent(s)

1 - Sandeep Behl S/o Late Prem Sagar Behl Aged About 55 Years R/o A-13, V.I.P. Estate, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - Raipur Treasure Island Private Limited Through Its Director/ Promoter Office At 6th Floor, Treasure Island 11, Tukoganj Main Road Indore - 452001 Madhya Pradesh 2 - Vraj Commercial Private Limited Through Its Director/ Promoter House No. 63, Jalvihar Colony Raipur Chhattisgarh - 492001 Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None.

(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)

Order on Board

05/03/2025

1. Since, the common facts and grounds are involved in all these writ

petitions, they are being considered and disposed of by this common

order.

2. By the present writ petitions, the petitioners are questioning the order

dated 23/12/2024 (Annexure-P/4) passed by the Real Estate Regulatory

Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'RERA'), whereby the application

filed by the petitioners seeking impleadment of the Bank as necessary

party, has been rejected. The petitioners are further questioning the order

dated 31/01/2025 (Annexure-P/6) passed by the Real Estate Appellate

Tribunal, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners questioning the

order dated 23/12/2024 has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the application for

impleadment of Bank as necessary party has been rejected by the RERA

as well as by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the petitioners

have failed to show averment in the application that they want to

implead bank as necessary party because the bank has taken recourse of

the provisions contained under Section 13 (4) of the SARFESI Act,

2002 against the respondents. He would further submits that though the

petitioners have not mentioned in the application about initiation of

proceeding under Section 13 (4) of the Act, 2002 against the

respondents/Builders by the Bank, but in a simple terms, they have

mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application for impleadment of bank

because the bank was involved in the financial transactions of the

property in question and as such their right and interest may be directly

affect. He would further submit that though the Appellate Tribunal has

observed that the petitioners can implead the respondent/Bank as

necessary party, but he has to show or make out a case that the Banks

have taken recourse to provisions of Section 13 (4) of the Act, 2002

against any of the respondents/Builders.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the order

of the RERA as well as order of the Appellate Authority and the

application submitted by the petitioners to implead the Banks as

necessary party.

5. On perusal of the application (Annexure-P/3), it is quite vivid that the in

the application submitted by the petitioners before the RERA, they have

submitted that the proposed respondent/Bank was involved in the

financial transactions of the concerned property in question, however, it

has not clearly stated about the proceeding initiated under Section 13 (4)

of the Act, 2002 against the Builder/respondents. Subsequently, the

learned Tribunal as well as the RERA while dealing with the

application, rejected the same only on the ground that the petitioners

have not specifically pleaded that the provisions of Section 13 (4) of the

Act, 2002 has been initiated by the Bank against respondents and the

property involved in the subject are directly involved under the

proceeding of the Act, 2002.

6. If, as per the pleadings and contentions of the petitioners, it is true that

the proceedings under Section 13 (4) of the Act, 2002 has been initiated

against the respondents/builders by the proposed respondent/bank, then

the impleadment application filed by the petitioners to implead the bank

as necessary party, in the opinion of this Court, is just and proper as also

in light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the matter of

Union Bank of India v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority

and Others1.

7. Hence, the petitioners are permitted to approach before the RERA by

filing a fresh application and by making a specific pleading that the

proposed Respondent/Bank has initiated a proceeding under Section 13

(4) of the Act against the respondent/builder. Needless to say that in the

event of filing such application by the petitioners within three days, the

RERA shall consider the same and shall pass necessary orders within a

further period of 5 days keeping in mind the judgment passed by the

Apex Court in the matter of Union of India (Supra).

8. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions are allowed to the extent

indicated above.

Sd/-

(BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul

1 2022 SCC Online SC 1885