V.B. Soni vs Citi Bank Nv And Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 2973 Del

1
$~
*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+          W.P.(C) 1626/2011 & CM No.3437/2011 (for stay)

           V.B. SONI                                           ..... Petitioner
                             Through:    Mr. Girdhar Govind, Ms. Noorun
                                         Nahar Firdousi & Ms. Jubli Momalia,
                                         Advocates.

                                   Versus

           CITI BANK NV AND ORS.               ..... Respondents
                         Through: None.
           CORAM:
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

                                   ORDER

% 02.06.2011

1. The petitioner claims that one M/s. Combit Advertising Network Ltd.

(not party in this writ petition) was the owner of Flat No.M-73, Top Floor,

Greater Kailash, Part-II, New Delhi; that the said flat was mortgaged with

the respondent no.1 Citi Bank; that upon default by the said M/s Combit

Advertising Network Ltd in re-payment of its dues, the respondent no.1

Bank obtained permission from the Court for auction of the said flat; that

the respondents no.3 & 4 property brokers offered the said flat as for sale to

the petitioner; that the petitioner paid the entire sale price of Rs.21,50,000/-

to the respondent no.1 Bank which issued a Sale Certificate to the petitioner

and also handed over possession of the flat to the petitioner; however the

receipts of payment of sale consideration handed over to the petitioner

showed the money to have been received from the respondents no.3 also;

that the respondent no.3 inspite of assurance did not get the receipt rectified;

that the petitioner asked the respondent no.1 Bank to rectify the aforesaid

receipts to show the consideration to have been received from the petitioner;

that the petitioner also approached the respondent no.1 Bank and respondent

no.2 City Global Services for execution of the sale deed in his name but

they are insisting upon the petitioner getting an affidavit from the

respondents no.3 & 4. Averring collusion between the respondents no.1 & 2

on the one hand and the respondents no.3 & 4 on the other hand, this writ

petition has been filed seeking mandamus to the respondents no.1 & 2 to

execute the sale deed of the flat in favour of the petitioner to complete the

transaction and also seeking to restrain the respondents no.1 & 2 from

registering any sale documents of the flat in the name of any other persons

or in the names of respondents no.3 & 4.

2. The writ petition was listed on several occasions for admission.

Question of maintainability thereof was put to the counsel for the petitioner.

In fact, the Registry also had objected to the maintainability of the writ

petition and the writ petition has been listed with office objection.

3. The counsel for the petitioner has today referred to head note B of

Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna

Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust Vs. V.r. Rudani AIR 1989 SC 1607 and to

the head note of M/s. Hyderabad Commercials Vs. Indian Bank 1991 SC

247 to contend that writ can be maintained against any person and ought not

to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the state

and that the Bank is an instrumentality of the state.

4. Without adverting to the aforesaid aspect, adjudication of the present

matter will entail returning findings on disputed facts. The payment which

the petitioner claims to have made was admittedly partly in cash and partly

by cheques in favour of respondents no.3 & 4 and not respondent no.1

Bank. It is not explicable as to why huge amounts were transacted in cash;

the respondents no.3 & 4 are obviously not obliging the petitioner and

owing whereto the sale deed claimed by the petitioner has not been executed

in his favour. It is not understandable as to why they are described in the

writ petition as proforma parties. In fact, no Sale Certificate or possession

letter also have been produced before this Court. The petitioner only relies

upon an Email dated 31st August, 2009 stating that the Sale Certificate had

been issued in the name of the respondent no.3 and the petitioner.

5. Thus, even if any of the respondents fail to appear inspite of notice

even if issued, there is nothing before this Court to believe the petitioner to

grant relief to him.

6. It is thus felt that the writ petition in any case is not maintainable.

The same is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek alternative

remedies in law.

No order as to costs.

CM No.3438/2011 (for exemption)

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J JUNE 02, 2011 bs..