Writ petition challenging Debt Recovery Tribunal's order rejecting a stay application on bank property auction. Court declined interference due to factual disputes pending in civil/criminal proceedings and the belated nature of petition.
Petition dismissed; exemption in IA No.1382/2018 not granted.
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.
$~29
M/S BOBBY IMPEX AND ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Shruita Agrawal, Advocate. versus THE CHIEF MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA O R D E R % 04.02.2019
CM APPL. 5259/2019
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 1168/2019
The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition to assail the order dated 27.10.2018 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi (‘DRT’).
By the impugned order, the DRT disposed of IA No.1382/2018 preferred by the petitioner to seek stay of auction sale of his property by the respondentbank on 29.10.2018 and to seek a direction to the respondent- bank to de-seal the property bearing No.E-144, Third Floor, Kamla Nagar, Delhi (‘the property’).
The DRT rejected the said application by observing that there was no irregularity or illegality in conducting the auction.
It appears that the said property was indeed put to auction on 29.10.2018. In pursuance to the said auction, the respondent-bank has issued a notice dated 04.01.2019 to the petitioners that the said property has been sold and the petitioners were called upon to remove all the inventories from the
property within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter. At this stage, the petitioners have approached this Court.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have been defrauded inasmuch, as, the petitioners’ acquaintances Ms. Ranjana Mehta and Mr.Raman Mehta have siphoned off monies from the cash credit account in connivance with the officials of the bank.
The aforesaid are the matters of factual dispute, which cannot be gone into by the Court in these proceedings. The petitioners’ application is pending before the Tribunal. Pertinently, it appears that the petitioner No.1 preferred the IA No.1382/2018 just two days before the date of the auction, which was fixed on 29.10.2018. Even before us, the petitioners have come only upon receipt of notice dated 04.01.2019 and therefore this petition is highly belated in respect of the impugned order dated 27.10.2018.
On our query, learned counsel for the petitioners states that no civil proceedings have been initiated either against the petitioners’ acquaintances Ms. Ranjana Mehta and Mr.Raman Mehta, or against the bank officials to seek any declaration regarding the alleged fraud. She states that a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the said persons, in which the summons have not yet been issued to the accused.
In view of the aforesaid position, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is dismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J
FEBRUARY 04, 2019 nn
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in the DRT's rejection of a stay application regarding property auction despite allegations of fraud.
Whether allegations of financial fraud by acquaintances in connivance with bank officials justify quashing the auction order at this stage.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/S BOBBY IMPEX AND ORS.
THE CHIEF MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA
VIPIN SANGHI
A. K. CHAWLA
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
