Delhi High Court
Suresh Kumar vs Jain Co-Operative Bank Ltd. & Ors on 20 February, 2015
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on 20th February, 2015
+ W.P.(C) 6441/2014 &C.M.No.15452/2014
SURESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Amit Bajaj, Adv.
versus
JAIN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Gautam Singhal, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Anwar, Adv. for R-2 and R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
%
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present petition is directed against the order dated 13.05.2014 of
the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) whereby it dismissed the
present petitioner's appeal. The petitioner consequently seeks a direction to
the DRT-III to decide on the S.A. No.538/2012 filed by the petitioner
without insisting on the pre-deposit of ₹ 3 lakhs.
3. The brief facts are that the petitioner claims to be the registered Power
of Attorney holder of the property over which a mortgage security was
apparently executed in favour of the first respondent/bank. The petitioner's
submission is that as the prior beneficial owner of the property, his title had
WP(C) 6441/2014
Page 1
to prevail over the mortgaged security. The first respondent, on the other
hand, contended that the property could not have been parted without the
permission of DSIDC since it was leased and that the mortgaged security
was created after duly notifying with the concurrence of the DSIDC. The
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 - in whose favour - credit facility was granted by
the first respondent challenged the petitioner's assertion and contended that
no interest was created in favour of the writ petitioner.
4. The petitioner's appeal against the securitization measure adopted by
the bank - in the form of S.A. No. 538/2012 was pending when it was
directed to deposit ₹ 3 lakhs by the DRT-III. That order dated 25.10.2012
was appealed against before the DRAT (Misc. Appeal No. 413/2012); the
DRAT rejected the appeal.
5. It is contended on behalf of the respondent/bank that the petitioner's
appeal before the DRT-III itself (S.A. No.538/2012) has been dismissed in
default and that he has filed an application for restoration.
6. We are of the opinion that having regard to the circumstances without
expressing any opinion as to the correctness of the order directing pre-
deposit, DRT-III should finally adjudicate S.A.No.538/2012 on the merits
rather than passing any order dismissing it on the ground of non-deposit of
amount directed.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent bank is agreeable to this
suggestion but at the same time urges that the DRT-III should be directed to
dispose of S.A.No.538/2012 at the earliest and preferably within four weeks.
8. In view of the submissions made, the impugned order is hereby set
aside. The S.A.No. 538/2012 is directed to be restored to the file of DRT-III
which shall then consider the submission of the parties and decide the said
WP(C) 6441/2014
Page 2
appeal on its merits. The DRT-III shall take the complete proceedings and
render its final decision within six weeks from today. All rights and
contentions of the parties are expressly reserved. The first respondent/bank
is directed not to take coercive action towards dispossessing the petitioner
and to take any further steps towards sale of the property for a period of six
weeks.
9. The parties are directed to be present before the DRT-III for this
purpose on 02.03.2015.
10. The writ petition and the pending applications are disposed of
accordingly.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
R.K.GAUBA, J
FEBRUARY 20, 2015
mr
WP(C) 6441/2014
Page 3
