Delhi High Court
Kartik Sharma & Ors. vs Bombay Mercantile Corporation ... on 26 November, 2008
Author: Mukul Mudgal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
21.
+ W.P.(C) No. 6340/2008 & C.M. No. 12888/2008
% Date of Decision: November 26th, 2008
KARTIK SHARMA & ORS. .... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Advocate.
Versus
BOMBAY MERCANTILE CORPORATION BANK LTD.
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Mr. Anisul Haque and
Mr. Ataul Haque, Advocates.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atul
Sharma and Mr. Ajay Saroya, Advocates for
Applicant Samsung Overseas in CM No.
12888/2008.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
JUDGMENT
MUKUL MUDGAL, J : (ORAL)
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
challenges the interim order dated 16th May, 2008 passed by the Debts
Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (for short 'DRAT').
2. After the matter had been heard at length, Mr. Tiku, learned counsel
for the Petitioners submitted that he would be satisfied if this Court were to
clarify that the issue of forfeiture of Rs. 1.75 crores is left open to be
considered by the DRAT on merits.
3. Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for M/s
Samsung Overseas Limited, who was joined as a party, stated that out of
aforesaid sum of Rs. 1.75 crores, Rs. 1.5 crores had been deposited by way of
two bank drafts by M/s Samsung Overseas Limited and therefore, could not
be forfeited but the same should be released to his clients. On the other hand,
Mr. Tiku, learned counsel for the Petitioners disputed the aforesaid plea of
Mr. Sharma. Mr. Jagjit Singh on behalf of the Respondent Bank stated that
the amount was rightly forfeited.
4. We direct that the issue of forfeiture is left open to be decided by the
Appellate Tribunal after hearing the Petitioners, the Respondent Bank as well
as M/s Samsung Overseas Limited, who shall be heard as a party in the
matter.
5. We are also of the view that the interest of justice would be met if the
Petitioners file an undertaking within one week to vacate the property bearing
No. H-27, Western Avenue, Sainik Farms, New Delhi on or before 10th
December, 2008. The said undertaking should be filed by the Petitioners Mr.
Kartik Sharma and by Mr. Naveneet Sharma (a minor, represented by his
father Mr. Rajesh Sharma).
6. In case such an undertaking is not filed within the stipulated period of
one week, the impugned order of the DRAT dated 16th May, 2008 shall
revive in toto and the Bank shall be entitled to forthwith take possession of
the aforesaid Sainik Farm premises in accordance with the order dated 3rd
May, 2007 passed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.
7. It is further ordered that in case possession is handed over to the
Respondent Bank on or before 10th December 2008, as stipulated by this
Court, then an affidavit to that effect shall be filed in this Court's Registry by
the Respondent Bank within one week of having taken over the possession.
Thereafter, the Registry of this Court, on an application being filed by M/s
Samsung Overseas Limited, shall refund the amount deposited by M/s
Samsung Overseas Limited to it.
8. Keeping in view their conduct, the parties agree that they will make a
donation of Rs. 50,000/- each. Accordingly, we direct that a sum of Rs.
50,000/- shall be deposited by the Petitioners with the Blind Relief
Association, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Near Oberoi Hotel, New Delhi-
110003, M/s Samsung Overseas Ltd. shall pay Rs. 50,000/- to Arya
Orphanage 1488, Pataudi House, Daryaganj, New Dehi-110002 and the
Respondent Bank shall pay Rs. 50,000/- to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition
and the CM stand disposed of in the above terms.
MUKUL MUDGAL, J
MANMOHAN, J
NOVEMBER 26, 2008/sb
