Delhi High Court
Dr. Raj Bir Singh Daryan vs The Sub-Divisional Magistrate ... on 6 August, 2002
Author: M Sarin
Bench: M Sarin
JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. Rule.
With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.
2. Petitioner by this writ petition, seeks a writ of mandamus to respondent No. 1, to forthwith de-seal the property and premises bearing flat No.D-7/7163, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
3. The case of the petitioner, as urged in the writ petition, is that respondents have, without notice, sealed the premises in question and as a result petitioner and his family comprising his wife and two sons, have been dispossessed from the house and are living in an adjoining Guest House No. D-7/7129, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Petitioner himself happens to be a Director of the Company M/s. Innovative Pultrusion Technology Pvt. Ltd., which has taken a loan from Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation. Petitioner had also given personal guarantee.
4. When the matter had come up before this Court on 2.8.2002, Mr. Anil Sapra, counsel for respondents, had appeared and sought time to obtain instructions.
5. Petitioner claimed that the flat was the only residential flat, which has been illegally sealed by the respondents in pursuance to a recovery notice issued under Section 32(G) of the MP State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 and the applicable rules.
Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the flat was on a tenancy basis with the petitioner. In the writ petition, it is averred that the house belongs to Dr. Bhanwar Singh and no proceedings in respect of the said house could be taken by the respondents.
6. Mr. Anil Sapra" counsel for the respondents, while opposing the writ petition, has submitted that petitioner is guilty of gross misrepresentation and concealment and thereby disentitled to any relief. In the copy of the Return filed, before the corporation while taking the loan, the house/flat was shown as petitioner's residential property, purchased for 7.5 lacs. In addition, a house property was shown in Ghaziabad, U.P. It is further stated that the respondents had repeatedly attempted to serve the petitioner and pasted the notice. But the petitioner was avoiding service. Mr. Sapra further submitted that if the petitioner wants any relief, he has to approach the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, where the recovery proceedings are pending and in pursuance to which the present recovery notice has been sent to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi for execution.
7. Mr. Ravi Gupta has expressed his regret inasmuch as there was no clear declaration with regard to the status of the house in the writ petition as also the apparently contradictory position, which emerges from the Return filed. He, however, prays for clemency inasmuch the petitioner and his family are virtually shelterless and dis-possessed from the house. Petitioner also offer to make some down payment to show his bonafide. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner would approach the concerned authority for further liquidation of the loan on such terms, as may be legitimately given to him. Mr. Anil Sapra after taking instructions from Mr. B.K. Khandelwal, Branch Manager, Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation, has no objection to the above.
8. Having considered the matter, let the
petitioner, in the first instance, make a down payment
of Rs. 5 lacs. Petitioner shall pay additional sum of Rs. 5 lacs within two weeks from today. The payment shall be made by a Bank Draft in favor of Madhya
Pradesh Financial Corporation. Upon the initial payment of Rs.5 lacs, as aforesaid, the premises in question shall be de-sealed.
9. Mr. Vikram Jetly , Advocate, Chamber No. 319, Delhi High Court Lawyers Chambers, New Delhi is appointed as Local Commissioner with a tentative fee of Rs. 15,000/- to be paid by the petitioner. The Local Commissioner shall visit the flat No. D-7/7163, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and make a complete inventory of the moveable assets, fittings and fixtures in the flat except the wearing apparels and jewellery on person. The Local Commissioner would appoint the petitioner as Superdar for the moveable assets, fittings and fixtures and handover the same to petitioner as Superdar.
Petitioner shall not, without leave of the competent Court in Madhya Pradesh, sell alienate, transfer or part with possession of the flat or any of the moveable assets. In Case, the additional payment of Rs. 5 lacs within two weeks from today, is not made, respondents shall have the right to re-seal the flat and the assets on superdari, and proceed further with the attachment and sale in accordance with law.
Petitioner shall also approach the concerned authority and the competent Court in Madhya Pradesh within four weeks from today and the present order is subject to such further directions and orders, as may be given by the Court of competent judicature i.e. High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
The writ petitions stands disposed of. A copy of the order be given dusty to counsel for the parties.
