Delhi High Court
Rekha Verma vs Shri Atul Kumar Goel And Ors on 22 October, 2024
Author: Dharmesh Sharma
Bench: Dharmesh Sharma
$~110
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 22nd October, 2024
+ CONT. CAS(C) 1665/2024
REKHA VERMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajay Khanna, Mr. Atul T.
N. & Mr. Happy Bir, Advs.
versus
SHRI ATUL KUMAR GOEL AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anmol Panwar & Mr. Prem
Raj, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
DHARMESH SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 62188/2024
1. This is an application seeking leave to file a contempt petition
against the respondents No. 1 to 4.
2. For the reasons stated in the application and in the interest of
justice, the application is allowed.
3. The application stands disposed of accordingly.
CONT. CAS(C) 1665/2024
4. The petitioner is seeking initiation of contempt proceedings
under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against
the respondents No.1 to 4, who are officials of the respondent
No.4/PNB1 and respondent No.5/IOB2 for allegedly committing wilful
1 Punjab National Bank
CONT. CAS(C) 1665/2024
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:23.10.2024
20:45:45
disobedience of the directions as contained in the judgment dated
20.09.2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C)
6653/2017.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4/PNB is present on
advance notice. However, no one is present for respondent No.5/IOB.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the property mortgaged
with the respondents has been put to auction in terms of provisions of
SARFAESI3 Act vide notice dated 06.06.2024. It is pointed out that
although notification/publication brings out details of the property viz.,
residential property No. I-37, Third Floor, along with terrace rights,
Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi, it was falling foul for not detailing the
measurements or dimensions of the property. It is urged that the
impugned auction notice issued by the respondent No.4/PNB is in
patent violation of directions passed by this Court as contained in the
order dated 20.09.2017 whereby it was directed that all necessary
information should be given with regard to properties which are
sought to be auctioned by the bank so that the public at large should
come to know about its location, dimensions, measurements, status of
freehold or leasehold, instead of simply mentioning the municipal
number and khasra numbers and address thereupon.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4/PNB has pointed out
that petitioner is abusing the process of law inasmuch as she filed IA
No. 481/2024 in Appeal No. 346/2016 arising out of SA No. 144/2014
2 Indian Overseas Bank
3 The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities
Interest Act, 2002
CONT. CAS(C) 1665/2024
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:23.10.2024
20:45:45
pending before the DRT4-I, Delhi and the application stands dismissed
for the failure on the part of the appellant/petitioner to make the pre-
deposit as per Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. It is also pointed out
that earlier W.P. (C) No. 8743/2024 was filed, which was dismissed
as withdrawn vide order dated 02.07.2024 by this Court as the learned
counsel for the petitioner made a statement that pleadings have to be
amended and the bidder has to be made as a party to the petition.
However, now this fresh application is filed.
8. It is pertinent to mention here that the objections with regard to
legality of the auction for want of details has been taken in TSA No.
129/2024 before the DRT and the matter is still sub judice and listed
for hearing on 06.11.2024.
9. It is evident that the present contempt petition is an attempt by
the petitioner to wriggle out of the conundrum which she is facing in
the proceedings before the DRT. The present petition has been filed
without annexing relevant orders on the subject passed by the DRT as
well as DRAT5 from time to time.
10. It is well settled that contempt is a matter between the Court and
the Contemnor. This Court finds that although there was a deviation
from general directions passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ
petition bearing W.P. (C) No. 6653/2017 dated 20.09.2017, it has not
caused anyone prejudice since the bidders must have done due
diligence as regards the measurements. The issue is now squarely in
the domain of the DRT.
4 Debt Recovery Tribunal
5 Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal
CONT. CAS(C) 1665/2024
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:23.10.2024
20:45:45
11. Hence, the present contempt petition is dismissed.
DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
OCTOBER 22, 2024
Sadiq
CONT. CAS(C) 1665/2024
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:23.10.2024
20:45:45
