Delhi High Court
Sushma Jain & Ors vs Canara Bank And Anr on 28 July, 2017
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6404/2017 and CMs 26503-04/2017
SUSHMA JAIN & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. Parvinder Singh with
Ms. Supreet Kaur, Advocates
versus
CANARA BANK ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
ORDER
% 28.07.2017
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners praying inter
alia for quashing/setting aside the order dated 6.6.2017 passed by the
learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), whereby their appeal
was dismissed for non-compliance of the condition of pre-deposit of 50% of
the amount of debt found to be due and recoverable from them under a
Recovery Certificate dated 22.9.2015 issued for a sum of Rs.21,03,737.72/-.
2. The records reveal that objections were filed by the petitioner No.1 to
the effect that as premises No.A-20/1, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi attached by
the Recovery Officer is her sole residential premises where she is residing
along with her family members, she is entitled to the protection provided
under Section 60(ccc) of CPC. The said objections were duly responded to
by the respondent/Bank that denied the submission that the petitioner No.1
is residing in the entire premises that comprises of a stilt area for car
parking, ground floor, upper ground floor, first floor, second floor and the
roof above the second floor. It was asserted that the said premises has been
let out.
3. Taking note of the fact that on 15.9.2016, it was stated on behalf of
the petitioner No.2/firm that the first floor has been let out and at that point
in time, the second floor was under construction, vide order dated 31.1.2017
the Recovery Officer had granted protection to the petitioners in respect of
the ground floor and the upper ground floor where they were stated to be
residing and directed that the amounts due be recovered from the attachment
and sale of the first floor and the second floor.
4. Thereafter, on 28.2.2017, learned counsel for the respondent/Bank
had sought time to file a valuation report in respect of the first floor and
second floor of the attached property. The Bank also filed an affidavit
stating inter alia that there are two other parcels of land that had been
mortgaged by the petitioners. The said properties were directed to be
attached and the petitioners were restrained from selling the same.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed an appeal
before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi (DRT-III). In view of failure
on their part to make pre-deposit of 50% of the amount of the Recovery
Certificate, the application filed by the petitioners was dismissed, vide order
dated 26.4.2017.
6. The order dated 26.4.2017 passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT-III,
was challenged by the petitioners before the DRAT. The said appeal also
came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 6.6.2017 with an
observation that the Tribunal cannot ignore the mandatory condition of pre-
deposit before entertaining an appeal under Section 30 of the RDDBFI Act.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.1/
Bank be called upon to first dispose of the three parcels of land that the
petitioners have mortgaged apart from their personal movable and
immovable assets, before proceeding against their sole residential premises.
8. Counsel for the respondent/Bank, who appears on advance copy,
opposes the present petition and states that, the petitioners have not paid
even a penny in respect of a loan obtained by them towards cash credit limit,
which had by now mounted to over Rs.21.00 lacs. As a result, the accounts
of the petitioners No.2 and 3 were declared as NPA in the year 2004. He
states that the three parcels of land referred to by the petitioners are all
disputed properties on which third parties have laid a claim and they have
only been identified but not demarcated so far. He states that stiff
resistance was put up by the petitioners and third parties working in tandem
with them at the time of identifying the said parcels of land. In these
circumstances, the respondent/Bank was left with no option to approach the
Recovery Officer for attachment of the residential premises at Rana Pratap
Bagh, Delhi for purposes of auctioning the same.
9. No ground has been made out by the petitioners for interference in the
impugned order. Even if the premises in question is stated to be the sole
residential premises of the petitioner No.1, the Recovery Officer has only
directed sale of the first floor, second floor and the roof above the second
floor, while for the present, permitting the petitioners to retain the ground
and the upper floors where they are residing.
10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as devoid of merits, along
with the pending applications.
HIMA KOHLI, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
JULY 28, 2017
sk/sr
