Delhi High Court
Tarawati And Ors. vs Bank Of India And Ors on 24 April, 2017
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3540/2017
TARAWATI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Anand Aggarwal, Advocate.
versus
BANK OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ashish Rana, Advocate for
R-1/Bank of India.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
ORDER
% 24.04.2017
CM 15443/2017 (exemption)
Subject to the petitioners filing the certified/typed/legible copies of
the documents annexed with the petition within four weeks, the application
is allowed and disposed of.
W.P.(C) 3540/2017
1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondent
No.1/Bank of India of approaching the Receiver appointed by the learned
CMM vide order dated 28.2.2017, in Application No. 150/1/16, filed by the
respondent No.1/Bank for taking over physical possession of their
residential premises RZ-48, Street No.1, Nasirpur, Durga Park, Delhi.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that aggrieved by the action
of the respondent No.1/Bank of insisting on taking over the physical
possession of the subject premises through the Receiver, the petitioners had
filed an application (SA No. 66/2017) before DRT-II, Delhi with a stay
application on which notice was issued to the respondent/Bank, for
04.5.2017.
3. A perusal of the order dated 04.5.2017 passed by the DRT-II reveals
that learned counsel for the respondent No.1/Bank was present before said
forum and he was called upon to file a reply. Hearing on the interim
application has been adjourned to 04.5.2017, but the DRT-II appears to have
declined granting any interim relief to the petitioners.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred an appeal
before the DRAT on the very same day i.e., on 21.4.2017. Leaned counsel
for the petitioners states that the said appeal is scheduled to be listed before
the learned DRAT tomorrow i.e., on 25.4.2017 and in the meantime, the
Receiver shall be visiting the subject premises this afternoon for taking over
the physical possession of the subject premises, thus making the appeal
infructuous.
5. On the first call, none was present on behalf of the respondent No.1
despite service of notice on the nominated counsel of the Bank.
6. Due to the urgency expressed by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the matters was passed over to enable him to contact learned
counsel for the respondent No. 1/Bank.
7. On the second call, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/Bank
appears and states that he has been requested by the other side to appear and
he has not been furnished an advance copy of the paper book. A complete
set of the paper book be furnished to the counsel for the respondent
No.1/Bank today itself.
8. It has been fairly stated by learned counsel for the respondent
No.1/Bank that the appeal filed by the petitioner has yet to be listed for
admission before the DRAT, but the stay application filed by them is listed
before DRT-II on 04.5.2017 and the Presiding Officer DRT-II may be
directed to hear and dispose of the same on the date fixed.
9. Accordingly, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the
parties, it is directed that the Receiver appointed vide order dated 28.2.2017,
shall not take any coercive steps in respect of the subject premises till the
DRT-II decides the pending stay application, filed by the petitioners in SA
66/2017. The said decision shall be expedited.
10. The petition is disposed of.
DASTI to parties under the signatures of the Court Master.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
APRIL 24, 2017/ap
