Delhi High Court
Praveen Dabas vs State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur & Ors on 14 July, 2015
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8601/2014 & C.M. APPL. 11945/2015
PRAVEEN DABAS ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. N. S. Dalal, Advocate.
versus
STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR & ORS ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Shiv K. Tyagi, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Kuldeep S. Parihar and Mr. H. S.
Parihar, Advocates for R.B.I.
Mr. U. N. Singh, Adv. for Union
Bank of India/R-6.
Mr. Mayank Goel, Proxy Counsel for
Mr. A. S. Anand, Adv. for R-7.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
ORDER
% 14.07.2015
C.M. APPL. 11945/2015
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 8601/2014
3. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2014 passed by the Debt
Recovery Appellate Tribunal, present writ petition has been filed.
This is yet another matter where the borrower has taken at least three
banks for a ride and financial assistance has been obtained by creating
a mortgage of a property known by No. I-4/58, 2nd Floor, Sector-16,
Rohini. The petitioner claims to be an innocent purchaser of the
aforesaid property as well. The petitioner approached the Debts
Recovery Tribunal against the SARFEASI action of Union Bank of
India for stay of dispossession and the sale of property in question.
No stay was granted to the petitioner which led to filing of an appeal.
The petitioner was granted stay on petitioner's depositing
Rs. 5,00,000/- which the petitioner claims to have deposited.
Mr. N. S. Dalal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
thereafter the petitioner received another notice from State Bank of
Bikaner & Jaipur and another notice is likely to be received from
Punjab National Bank also as respondent nos. 2 & 3, borrowers have
on the basis of title deeds of the same property created mortgage in
favour of three different banks and obtained loan. Pursuant to the
orders of the Delhi High Court, Rs. 4,00,000/- were also deposited by
the petitioner.
4. Counsel for all the parties are in agreement that the borrower has
played a fraud and at least either of the title deeds are fabricated or
only one would be a genuine document. But till date no independent
enquiry has been conducted to reach the conclusion as to which
document of which party is a genuine document. Parties are also in
agreement that for reaching the finality on this aspect i.e. which sale
deed is a genuine document, an enquiry would have to be conducted
and appropriate evidence would have to be led.
5. We are informed that the application filed by the petitioner being S.A.
No. 570/2012 is still pending. It is agreed that all the three banks will
appear in the aforesaid S.A and all banks would be entitled to lead
evidence on the point of genuineness of the documents alone. It
would be open for the Debt Recovery Tribunal to send title deeds of
all the banks and of the petitioner to the CFSL for seeking an opinion
regarding genuineness of the title documents. Rights of all parties are
kept open.
6. The petitioner is stated to be in possession. He will file an
undertaking in this court within one week that he would not sell the
property, encumber the property or create third party rights without
prior permission of the concerned Debt Recovery Tribunal. Till the
pendency of this S.A. and the enquiry with regard to the property
bearing No. I-4/58, 2nd Floor, Sector-16, Rohini, the property in
question will not be put to sale and the petition shall not be disposed
of.
7. It is made clear that this order has been passed in the facts of this case
where the borrower has mortgaged the property to three banks and
sold the same to one private person. This arrangement is without
prejudice to rights and contentions of all the parties.
8. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
JULY 14, 2015
sc
