Delhi High Court
Darayus Nariman & Anr vs Oriental Bank Of Commerce & Ors on 31 May, 2019
$~22 & 49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 31.05.2019
% W.P.(C.) No. 6546/2019
DARAYUS NARIMAN & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Pallav Saxena, Mr. Varun Kumar, Ms.
Avshreya P.S.Rudy, and Mr. H.M.S.Rawat,
Advocates.
Versus
ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mahesh K. Chaudhary and Ms.
Sushmita Chaudhary, Advocates for R-1.
(OBC)
W.P.(C.) No. 6638/2019
DARAYUS NARIMAN & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Pallav Saxena, Mr. Varun Kumar, Ms.
Avshreya P.S.Rudy, and Mr. H.M.S.Rawat,
Advocates.
Versus
ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mahesh K. Chaudhary and Ms.
Sushmita Chaudhary, Advocates for R-1.
(OBC)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
VIPIN SANGHI, J. (ORAL)
CM No.27711/2019 in W.P.(C) No.6546/2019
CM No.28050/2019 in W.P.(C) No.6638/2019
Exemptions allowed subject to just exceptions.
The applications stand disposed of.
W.P.(C.) No. 6546/2019 & CM No.27710/2019
W.P.(C) No. 6638/2019 & CM No. 28049/2019
1. Issue notice. Counsel for the respondent no.1 accepts notice.
2. In view of the order that we propose to pass, we do not consider it
necessary to issue notice to the other respondents.
3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 27.5.2019 passed by
the learned Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal in Misc. Appeal No.
121/2019 arising out of Appeal No. 6/2019. The said appeal had been
preferred by the petitioners, being aggrieved by the order dated 27.2.2019
passed by the DRAT-III, Delhi.
4. The petitioners claim to have entered into an Agreement to Sell with
the owners/debtors i.e. respondents no. 3 and 8, against whom respondent
no.1-bank had initiated the Original Application to claim recovery of debts
due to it. The Original Application was allowed and a recovery certificate
was issued against the debtors. The property bearing no. 127-A, Central
Avenue, Sainik Farms, New Delhi in respect whereof the petitioners claimed
to be the agreement purchasers, was a property mortgaged to secure the loan
obtained by the debtors. With a view to effect recovery, the Recovery
Officer was appointed by the DRT, who took possession of the said property
from the petitioners on 28.01.2019.
5. With a view to secure its interest under its alleged agreement to sell,
the petitioners deposited the entire amount claimed by the respondent-bank
under the recovery certificate. Thus, so far as the claim of the respondent-
bank is concerned, the same stands completely satisfied.
6. There are inter se disputes between the petitioners and the original
owners, in respect whereof the petitioners claim for specific performance of
agreement to sell, as well as the suit of the owners to claim cancellation
thereof, are pending.
7. On 27.2.2019, the Debt Recovery Tribunal passed an order, which
shows that the Tribunal is examining the statement of account filed by the
respondent-bank with regard to the quantification of the liability of the
borrowers. That order was assailed before the Ld. DRAT by the petitioners.
The learned DRAT while passing the impugned order has remanded back
the proceedings to the DRT and directed that since the petitioners have
settled the claim of the bank, further proceedings towards sale of the
property in question be stayed. However, no direction has been issued with
regard to the delivery of possession of the property to the petitioners, despite
the fact that the respondent-bank has made a statement that its claim stands
satisfied and the possession of the property was taken by the Recovery
Officer from the petitioner.
8. Learned counsel further submits that in the proceedings before the
DRT in the SA, the respondent-bank had agreed to deposit the title deeds in
this Court.
9. Since the admitted position is that the possession of the said property
was with the petitioners before it was taken over by the Recovery Officer;
the possession of the said property was taken over by the Recovery Officer
only with a view to proceed with the auction sale of the said property; the
respondent-bank has stated that its claim is fully satisfied meaning thereby
that the auction sale of the said property is no longer required to be
undertaken, there was no purpose in allowing the possession of the property
to remain with the Recovery Officer. In our view, the DRAT should have
directed the same to be restored to the petitioners since the same was taken
from the petitioners.
10. Accordingly, we dispose of this petition with a direction to the
Recovery Officer to forthwith deliver the possession of the property to the
petitioners. The respondent-bank shall deposit the original title deeds
relating to the property in the suit and the counter-claim proceedings which
are pending in this Court, and the release of the said title deeds shall abide
by the decision in the suit/counter-claim.
11. The aforesaid direction is agreeable to the respondent-bank, and in
our view, there is no prejudice caused to the other respondents/ owners,
since merely the status quo ante has been restored as it existed before the
Recovery Officer took over the possession of the property from the
petitioners. The rights/claims of the petitioners and the owners i.e.
Respondent Nos. 3 and 8 in the respect of the said property are preserved.
12. The petition stands disposed of.
W.P.(C.) No. 6638/2019
This petition stands disposed of in terms of our orders passed in
W.P.(C) 6546/2019.
Dasti.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.
MAY 31, 2019
ib/jitender
