Petitioner auction purchaser challenged DRT order directing her to hand over property possession to bank respondent. Court held petitioner's rights extinguished by prior final DRT order. Writ dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000. Possession directed to be made over to respondent no.4 within one week.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 902 of 2022
Petitioner :- Smt. Kiran Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kumar Ashutosh Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Mohan Asthana,Raj Kumar Tiwari,Satish Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Mr. Ashutosh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Girish Kumar Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Shri Raj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.4, Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, Shri Sagar Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Shri K.M. Asthana, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
Present petition has been filed by the petitioner/ auction purchaser seeking quashing of the order dated 6.12.2021 passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad. Thereby the Debts Recovery Tribunal has disposed of Misc. Application No.96 of 2017 filed by respondent no.4. Operative portion of that order reads as below :
"Considered the rival contentions of the parties.
It is very necessary on the part of the Auction Purchaser to handover the physical possession of the property in question to respondent bank in compliance of order dated 10.04.2017 and 25.10.2021 of this Tribunal. To comply the order dated 10.04.2017 and 25.10.2021. The S.S.P. Kanpur is hereby instructed to provide adequate assistance of Police to the respondent bank to that the respondent bank could take physical possession of the property in question, in case auction purchaser failed to hand over the physical possession of the property in question within 15 days.
Respondent Bank is also directed to depute its Authorized Officer to contact the S.S.P. Office for police assistance and take physical possession of the property after 15 days, if not handed over by the auction purchaser within 15 days.
Respondent bank is also directed to handover the Demand Draft as per the order dated 10.04.2017 to the auction purchaser while taking/receiving the physical possession of the property.
Auction Purchaser is also directed to hand over the physical possession of the property in question within 15 days to the Respondent Bank
In the light of above, the M.A. is disposed off accordingly.
Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties as per Rule.
Record be consigned to the record room."
Briefly pursuant to proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The secured asset House No.3-C-213/2 Awas Vikas, Hanspuram, Naubasta, Kanpur, owned by respondent no.6 was proceeded against. Thus respondent no.6 was deprived of possession and the property was put up for auction.
According to the petitioner, she purchased the same for total consideration Rs.16,93,000/- against sale certificate dated 4.8.2012. She has continued in undisturbed possession over the same, since then.
Being aggrieved by the proceedings under the 'Act', respondent no.4, principal borrower filed SA No.273 of 2011 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad on 10.10.2011. It was decided by order dated 10.04.2017.
In those proceedings, the petitioner was also heard. The DRT proceeded to quash the possession notice and all consequential proceedings. The operative portion of that order reads as below :
"10. The Bank is directed to pay the amount deposited by the auction purchaser with interest as applicable to FDR after taking back possession and all requisite original documents from auction purchaser. The respondent auction purchaser is directed to handover the physical possession of the property in question and all original documents to the bank immediately. The applicant and the respondent bank may inform to the SubRegistrar Kanpur about the cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of auction purchaser.
11. If applicant intends to avail the equity of redemption he may deposit the bank dues with all cost and expenses within 15 days, failing which bank will be entitled to proceed with its securitization process in accordance with law.
12. In view of this, I find merit in the S.A. the same is hereby allowed. The S.A. is disposed of accordingly.
Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties as per Rules.
The order is pronounced in the open court."
It is the case of the respondent no.4 that he complied with the terms of the aforesaid order of the DRT dated 10.4.2017.
Against the aforesaid order of DRT, the present petitioner preferred Appeal No.R-126 of 2017 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad. That appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 28.11.2018. No challenge was raised by the petitioner to that order. It attained finality.
Despite the above fact, the petitioner somehow continued to retain her possession. On its part the respondent no.4 claims to have fully complied with the order dated 10.4.2017. Taking into consideration all the above facts the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad passed a further order dated 6.12.2021 in
Misc. Application No.96 of 2017 in SA No.273 of 2011. The operative portion of that order has already been quoted above.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the impugned order dated 6.12.2021 does not suffer from any error. Once the order dated 10.4.2017 attained finality upon dismissal of appeal arising therefrom i.e. in light of the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal dated 28.11.2018 passed in Appeal No. 126 of 2017, no further rights survived to the petitioner as may have allowed her to continue in possession for a single day beyond the time granted by the DRT. In any case by order dated 6.12.2021 the Tribunal granted the petitioner 15 days time to vacate the premises. Even that has not been done.
The rights of the petitioner have been extinguished, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. The fact that the petitioner is a lady does not entitle her to deprive the rightful owner of the property from its enjoyment. Whatever money the petitioner may be entitled to may be claimed by her from the Bank but not by way of ransom by holding over possession of the property not belonging to her. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.1,00,000/-.
It is further provided, that upon the copy of this order being placed before the executing authorities including the District Magistrate, they shall ensure the possession of the disputed property is made over to respondent no.4 within a period of one week from date of such compliance being made failing which the said respondent together with the present petitioner may expose themselves to compensation.
Cost to be paid to the respondent no.4.
Order Date :- 16.5.2022 Shiv
Digitally signed by SHIV KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2022.05.19 11:35:59 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the DRT order directing possession handover should be allowed.
Whether the petitioner's retention of possession after the finality of the DRT order defeats her rights.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Kiran Singh
State Of U.P.
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad
Respondent no.4
Respondent-Bank
SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH
SHIV KUMAR SHARMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
