Delhi High Court
Central Bank Of India vs Pawan Kumar Aggarwal & Ors on 2 May, 2018
#11 To 13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 02.05.2018
+ W.P.(C) 11270/2015 & CM No.29457/2015 (Stay)
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate
versus
INDIAN BANK & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pradeep Dhaka, Advocate for R-1
Mr. U.N. Singh, Advocate for R-4
+ W.P.(C) 11298/2015 & CM No.29537/2015 (Stay)
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate
versus
PAWAN KUMAR AGGARWAL & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. U.N. Singh, Advocate for R-6
Mr. Pradeep Dhaka, Advocate for R-7
+ W.P.(C) 11322/2015 & CM No.29701/2015 (Stay)
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate
versus
W.P.(C) 11270/2015, 11298/2015 & 11322/2015 Page 1 of 6
VIJAYA BANK & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Arun Dhir, Advocate for R-1
Mr. U.N. Singh, Advocate for R-2
Mr. Pradeep Dhaka, Advocate for R-4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. In these writ petitions instituted on behalf of Central Bank of India,
orders passed by the learned Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short
'DRAT') in inter-connected appeals being Appeal Nos.267/2015 in O.A.
No.109/2011 (Delhi-II); Miscellaneous Appeal No.60/2015 in S.A.
No.9/2011 (Delhi-II); I.A. No.597/2015 & 598/2015 and Inward
No.352/2015 in O.A. No.182/2011 (Delhi-II) have been impugned.
2. The facts briefly encapsulated are that one Mr. Pawan Kumar
Aggarwal was sanctioned a loan of `19 lakhs against the mortgage of the
property bearing No.RZ-93B, H-37 and H-38, Street No.3, Sadh Nagar,
Palam Colony, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject property')
by Vijaya Bank on 16.10.2003.
3. In relation to the subject property, it was the case of Andhra Bank that
they had granted a housing loan of `12 lakhs to Mr. Pawan Kumar Aggarwal
and Smt. Mamta Aggarwal, who had created mortgage over the subject
property with the said bank. Although a Written Statement had been filed on
behalf of Andhra Bank, they did not choose to lead any evidence in the
proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short 'DRT') and were
proceeded ex parte. In this behalf, it is relevant to observe that there is no
appearance on behalf of Andhra Bank despite service of notice before this
Court either.
4. On behalf of the Indian Bank, it was asserted that they had sanctioned
a home loan in the sum of `17 lakhs to Ms. Shakuntala Devi, Ms. Mamta
Aggarwal, Mr. Vinod Kumar Aggarwal and Mr. Ratan Lal Aggarwal on
25.09.2003 and further granted an additional loan of `5 lakhs on 09.09.2004
in consideration of a mortgage executed in that behalf by the abovesaid four
persons on 05.11.2003.
5. The appellant-Central Bank of India would urge that they had
advanced a term loan of `26 lakhs on 16.05.2009 to Mr. Pawan Kumar
Aggarwal and in consideration thereof, the subject property was mortgaged
with them.
6. However, the learned DRT in the first instance and the learned DRAT
in appeal returned a finding that Union Bank of India in whose favour Mr.
Pawan Kumar Aggarwal, Ms. Mamta Aggarwal, Mr. Vinod Kumar
Aggarwal and Mr. Ratan Lal Aggarwal had created an equitable mortgage on
14.07.2003 and subsequently on 19.07.2003, was legally entitled to foreclose
and enforce this mortgage owing to the fact that the Union Bank of India
having created a charge over the subject property, prior to the other banks,
was granted priority for the recovery of its dues.
7. In this behalf, the Sale Deed dated 10.02.2003 executed by one Mr.
Narsima Moorthi in favour of Mr. Pawan Kumar Aggarwal had been duly
considered. It has further been found that all the other mortgages created by
the named individuals in relation to the subject property have been
subsequent thereto, and are resultantly not valid.
8. It is in this view of the matter that the learned DRAT held that the
Union Bank of India would have the right to recover its dues prior to others.
9. This Court vide its order dated 07.12.2016 permitted the Union Bank
of India to auction the subject property and keep the proceeds thereof, in a
fixed deposit.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India states that
pursuant to the liberty granted, the subject property has been auctioned and a
sale certificate in relation thereto, has been issued to the successful bidder. It
is further stated that in terms of the collateral proceedings, the Andhra Bank
has retained physical possession of the subject property.
11. Mr. Jaswinder Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Central
Bank of India would, therefore, urge that if any amounts are left over after
the Union of India receives its debts in full, it would be appropriate if the
same is disbursed in equal shares to the other banks which are also
nationalized banks.
12. In view of the circumstance that the loan extended on behalf of the
nationalized banks are public money, it is considered just and necessary to
direct as follows:-
i) The Union Bank of India shall encash the proceeds of sale of
the subject property kept in a fixed deposit receipt and after
adjusting the amount owed to them, deposit the balance, if any,
with the Registrar, DRAT within a period of one month from
today.
ii) The learned DRAT shall disburse the balance amount, if and
when so deposited, in equal shares, between the other
nationalized banks, on an application being made by the latter in
this behalf.
iii) The Andhra Bank, who are not represented before us, despite
service of notice, are directed to hand over physical possession
of the subject property to the Union Bank of India, forthwith.
13. With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. All the
pending applications also stand disposed of.
14. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of Court
Master to counsel for the parties.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
(JUDGE)
DEEPA SHARMA
(JUDGE)
MAY 02, 2018
dn
