Delhi High Court
P.N. Chawla vs Commissioner Of Industries & ... on 23 October, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
26.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 12610/2009
P N CHAWLA ..... Petitioner
Through Dr. Harish Uppal, Advocate.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 23.10.2009
1. The petitioner has applied for regularization and conversion of
industrial plot bearing No. S-78, Functional Industrial Estate for
Electronics, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi, which the
petitioner claims was purchased from Mr. V.K. Luthra on execution of
agreement to sell, general power of attorney, etc. As per the terms of the
original perpetual lease deed dated 16th August, 1984, there is a
bar/prohibition on transfer by Mr. V.K. Luthra and the transfer can be
made subject to permission being granted by the lessor, Land and
Development Office, on terms and conditions stipulated therein. The
respondent-Land and Development Office has now taken out a
circular/brochure for regularization of the said transfer on payment of
conversion cost and additional amount in the form of surcharge in case of
power of attorney sale.
2. By letter dated 9th July, 2009, the respondents-Commissioner of
Industries, Government of NCT of Delhi informed the petitioner to comply
with the three requirements. The second requirement mentioned in this
letter dated 9th July, 2009 reads as under:-
"(ii) No objection certificate from, Canara Bank,
Okhla, New Delhi for doing the needful (copy
enclosed) be submitted in this office."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid
property was earlier mortgaged with Canara Bank, Okhla in connection
with a loan transaction on account of M/s Anumito Electronics of which Mr.
V.K. Luthra was a proprietor. He submits that Canara Bank has already
released the original title deed and the property is no longer mortgaged
with Canara Bank. It is submitted that the second condition mentioned
above is satisfied.
4. It is correct that the property in question was earlier mortgaged with
Canara Bank on account of M/s Anumito Electronics of which Mr. V.K.
Luthra was a proprietor. However, Canara Bank has also filed recovery
proceedings against the company M/s Magnum Electronics in which Mr.
V.K. Luthra was a Managing Director and where Mr. V.K. Luthra has given
his personal guarantee. In the said proceedings, recovery certificate has
been issued in favour of Canara Bank against M/s Magnum Electronics and
Mr. V.K. Luthra. Canara Bank in it's reply has clarified that they have
proceeded against Mr. V.K. Luthra as a guarantor and that he being the
legal owner of the leasehold rights in respect of the plot, the said bank is
entitled to recover the money by sale of the property. The petitioner
herein has also filed an application claiming that Canara Bank cannot
proceed against the said property as the petitioner is de facto owner of the
property since 6th July, 1992. The petitioner relies upon agreement to sell
and general power of attorney etc., which it is stated were executed for
consideration.
5. Admitted position is that the application filed by the petitioner and
the defence raised by Canara Bank are still to be adjudicated by the Debt
Recovery Tribunal. Till adjudication of the said dispute by the Debt
Recovery Tribunal, I do not think the application for conversion filed by the
petitioner and regularization of transfer can be processed by the
respondents-L&DO. The dispute between Canara Bank and the petitioner
is required to be resolved and decided first, before the application for
conversion can be considered and disposed of by the respondents.
6. In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to entertain the present
writ petition at this stage. It will be open to the petitioner to ask the Debt
Recovery Tribunal for early disposal of his application and the claim of the
bank.
The writ petition is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
OCTOBER 23, 2009
VKR
