Dismissed

Shabana Parveen v. Central Bank of India

Delhi HC7 Dec 2018W.P.(C)/12792/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition by Shabana Parveen against Central Bank of India, the petitioner sought a stay on eviction. The petitioner had settled dues in a prior related petition but failed to pay the agreed amount after the court extended the deadline. The single-judge bench dismissed the petition, holding that the court will not interfere with SARFAESI proceedings where no ground exists to fault the bank's a

What did the court decide?

Disgarding the prayers to restrain eviction, the petition was dismissed and pending applications disposed of.

Shabana Parveen Vs Central Bank of India — Cheque Dishonour | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 12792/2018 & CM Nos. 49660/2018 & 49661/2018

¶4

SHABANA PARVEEN ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr Amit Nahata, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr R. S. Mathur, Advocate with Mr Sandeep Kumar, Branch Manager.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R

¶10

% 07.12.2018

¶11

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that despite his best efforts he has not received any instructions from the petitioner. He states that the petitioner had indicated that she would be reverting to him but he has received no information at all.

¶12

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to restrain the respondent from evicting the petitioner from the property located at C-1/167, First Floor, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi110053. Admittedly, the said property has been mortgaged to respondent no.1 bank (the bank) and the bank has initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).

¶13

The petitioner had filed a petition seeking similar reliefs (W.P.(C) 3556/2018 captioned as ‘Shabana Praveen v. Central Bank of India and

¶14

Ors.’). During the course of the proceedings in the said petition, the bank was persuaded to accept a sum of 24 lakhs along with interest @ 18% from 30.03.2018 in addition to legal expenses, in full and final settlement of their dues. In view of the consensus between the parties, this Court had directed the petitioner to pay a sum of 4,97,138/- as legal expenses; plus (b) a sum of 24 lakhs; plus (c) interest computed at 72,065. This Court had also directed that a sum of ` 5,77,000/- already paid by the petitioner be deducted from the aforesaid amounts payable by the petitioner. The said payments were to be made by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from that order and the auction of the property in question, which was scheduled to take place on 21.08.2018 was directed to be deferred. This Court had also clarified that if the petitioner did not pay the amount as directed, the respondents would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

¶15

Admittedly, the petitioner did not make the payments as agreed. Thus, the bank was free to proceed in accordance with law. The petitioner has filed the present petition explaining that there was delay in making the aforesaid payment since there was demise in her family. Although, the petitioner had no legal right to insist that the compromise entered into earlier be implemented; nonetheless, this Court had granted further time to the petitioner to pay the amounts as agreed on or before 07.12.2018.

¶16

Since, the petitioner has failed to pay the aforesaid amount as agreed by the bank, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this petition.

¶17

The proceedings initiated by respondent no.1 are under the SARFAESI Act and it is well settled that this Court would not interfere with the said proceedings in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

¶18

Constitution of India. More importantly, in this case, the petitioner is unable to establish any ground to fault the action taken by the bank under the SARFAESI Act.

¶19

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The pending applications are disposed of.

¶20

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶21

DECEMBER 07, 2018 MK

Shabana Parveen v. Central Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shabana Parveen v. Central Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Delhi Transport Corporation through Its Chairman Vs Anil Kumar

South Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Lekh Raj and Anr.

South Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Ganga Saran & Ors.

South Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Ram Chander & Anr.

B. K. Tripathi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kanijan & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Indian Wind Power Association Vs Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Power and Ors.

Mgmt. of Cantonment Board Merr Vs Preetam Singh

Jatinder Pal Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shailesh Gupta Vs Union of India and Anr.

Shiv Pujan Singh and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Harpal Singh and Anr. Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors.

Ms. Anju Kaushal Vs Dvb Employees Terminal Benefits and Ors.

Citius Real Estate (P) Limited Vs Collector of Stamps/Sdm (Hq)