Delhi High Court
Pritam Dass And Anr vs Sub Divisional Magistrate Vivek ... on 13 October, 2023
$~93
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 13.10.2023
+ CM(M) 1679/2023
PRITAM DASS AND ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kamlesh Kr. Mishra, Mr. Aditya,
Mr. Bibhuti Bhushan Mishra and Mr.
Anjani Kr. Mishra, Advocates along
with Petitioner in person
versus
SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE VIVEK VIHAR AND ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Nishtha Sinha and Ms. Rachita
Garg, Advocates for R-1/SDM
Mr. Nishant Awana, Advocate for R-
6/IIFL
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL):
CM APPL. 53382/2023 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 1679/2023 & CM APPL. 53381/2023(stay)
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
impugns the order dated 03.10.2023 bearing F. No. SDM(W)/Order/145
Cr.P.C/2023/3550-55 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Vivek Vihar
('SDM') directing the de-sealing of the property bearing No. 9/5741, Plot
No. 11 B, Old No. 596/4-A/9-Q/1 Khasra No. 602/110/2, Village
Signature Not Verified
By:Hemant Pratap Singh
Signing Date:18.10.2023
21:22:10
Seelampur, Abadi of Subash Mohalia-2, Gandhi Nagar, illaqa, Shahdara,
Gandhi Nagar, East Delhi, Delhi ('subject property') in compliance of the
order dated 28.06.2023 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, North-
East District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi ('CMM').
2. It is stated that the subject property was purchased by Sh. Larja Ram
vide Sale Deed dated 10.04.1962 executed by Sh. Bhoja.
2.1. It is stated thereafter on 14.05.2012, a Sale Deed was executed by son
of Sh. Larja Ram i.e., Sh. Jagdish Chand with respect of the subject property
in favour of Petitioner No. 2 i.e., M/s Manglam Packs Pvt. Ltd. and was
registered on 28.07.2012.
2.2. It is stated that on 12.11.2022 and 18.11.2022 some officials of
Respondent No. 6 i.e., IIFL Home Finance Ltd. visited the subject property
and claimed charge under a mortgage deed dated 23.12.2021.
2.3. It is stated that on 05.01.2023, the Petitioner No. 1 i.e., Director of
Petitioner No. 2 made a complaint to the SDM, Vivek Vihar under Section
145 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') against Respondent No. 6.
2.4. It is stated on 30.01.2023, the SDM, Vivek Vihar passed an order
directing the Respondent No. 2 i.e., Tehsildar, Vivek Vihar to seal the
subject property and directed both the parties to maintain status quo.
2.5. It is stated that the impugned order of de-sealing has been passed by
the SDM without issuing any notice to the Petitioner or granting any hearing
in violation of principles of natural justice.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioners were
not aware about the order dated 28.06.2023 until it was served upon them
during the course of hearing on 12.10.2023 by counsel for Respondent No.
Signature Not Verified
By:Hemant Pratap Singh
Signing Date:18.10.2023
21:22:10
4. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.6 has entered appearance
and submits that the impugned order has been passed in favour of the
Respondent No.6 in deference to the orders dated 28.06.2023 as per the
mandate of Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act,
2002').
4.1. He states that he was unaware about the passing of the impugned
order until a copy thereof was served on him by the Petitioner during the
course of hearing on 12.10.2023.
4.2. He states that the Respondent No.6 had made a representation on
16.09.2023 to the SDM for de-sealing the property in compliance with the
order dated 28.06.2023.
4.3. He fairly admits that the copy of his representation dated 16.09.2023
was not served on the Petitioner herein and there was no oral hearing
granted by the SDM before passing the impugned order and therefore in
fact, Respondent No.6 itself was not aware about the passing of the
impugned order.
4.4. He states that Respondent No.6 disputes the contention of the
Petitioners that they had no notice of the order dated 28.06.2023 passed by
the CMM as there was notice by affixation on the subject property by the
Receiver appointed by the Court.
5. In response, the learned counsel for the Petitioners states that he seeks
liberty to withdraw this petition and avail his remedy in accordance with law
against the impugned order dated 03.10.2023 as well as the order 28.06.2023
passed by the CMM.
6. This Court is not opining upon the knowledge, if any, of the Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
By:Hemant Pratap Singh
Signing Date:18.10.2023
21:22:10
of the order dated 28.06.2023; however, in order to enable the Petitioners to
avail their remedies in accordance with law, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are
directed not to give effect to the de-sealing order until 19.10.2023.
7. With the aforesaid direction, the present is disposed of. Pending
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
8. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official
website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated
as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No
physical copy of order shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
OCTOBER 13, 2023/hp/asb
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
By:Hemant Pratap Singh
Signing Date:18.10.2023
21:22:10
