Dismissed

Ashish Kumar v. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. & Ors.

Delhi HC22 Aug 2024W.P.(C)/11543/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition filed by a home loan borrower challenging a possession notice issued by an NBFC's Court Receiver. The court held it lacked jurisdiction over writs against NBFCs as the impugned order stemmed from SARFAESI proceedings, directing the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal instead.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without prejudice; pending application disposed of.

Ashish Kumar Vs Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd… — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~119

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of decision: 22^nd August, 2024

¶4

- W.P.(C) 11543/2024 & CM APPL. 47866/2024

¶5

ASHISH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashish Chauhan, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD & ORS.

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Through: Mr. Arman Roop Sharma and Mr. Rahul Gupta, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Mukul Bhimani, Advocate for Respondent No.4.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA DHARMESH SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner evidencing service of notice of the writ petition along with the documents having been served upon the respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 puts appearance today as well.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and in continuation of previous order dated 21.08.2024, the petitioner is invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of appropriate writ, order or directions against the respondent No.1 with regard to the property in question seeking quashing of the notice dated 02.08.2024 issued by Court Receiver in terms of order dated 26.07.2024 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South-West,

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

W.P. (C) 11543/2024 Page 1 of 3

¶16

Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:22.08.2024 20:18:12

¶17

Dwarka Courts, New Delhi [“ CJM ”] in the proceedings under Section 14(2) of the SARFAESI Act¹ .

¶18

At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has urged that this Court has no jurisdiction to pass any directions primarily for the fact that the writ petition is filed against an NBFC² , for which he has invited reference to decision by the Supreme Court in the case of Phoenix ARC Private Limited v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir³ . 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has alluded to decision in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank⁴ so as to canvass the point that the writ petition is maintainable. 5. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is the case of the petitioner that he availed a home loan from respondent No.4/NBFC in terms of sanction letter dated 26.02.2022 for buying the subject property and they had been diligently making payment of EMIs⁵ and finally a sale deed dated 09.05.2024 was registered in his name (Annexure-2).

¶19

The grievance of the petitioner is that out of blue, he has found notice pasted at the subject property dated 02.08.2024 whereby purportedly pursuant to proceedings in the complaint case No. 22032/2024 an intimation is given that the physical possession of the property shall be taken over by the respondent No.1 on 23.08.2024.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that a fraud has been played upon the petitioner inasmuch as now he has been able to

¶21

1 Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,

¶22

2002

¶23

2 Non-Banking Financial Company

¶24

3 (2022) 5 SCC 345

¶25

4 (2024) SCC OnLine SC 528

¶26

5 Equal Monthly Installments

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

W.P. (C) 11543/2024 Page 2 of 3

¶29

Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:22.08.2024 20:18:12

¶30

secure a copy of another registered sale deed dated 23.01.2023, which would suggest that respondent No.5 Mr. Amit Gupta and respondent No.6 Ms. Pooja Gupta alleged to have sold the subject property to Mohd. Furkan Qureshi S/o Mr. Rahis Qureshi against whom SARFAESI proceedings have been instituted by way of complaint case No. 22032/2024 leading to order dated 26.07.204. It is vehemently urged that personal photographs of respondents No. 5 and 6 are different than the sale deed which has been executed in his favour and a fraud has been practiced upon him.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 apart from preliminary objection referred above, has pointed out in the meanwhile complaints have been lodged not only by them but also by petitioner with the police for the alleged fraud and the matter obviously would be investigated in accordance with the law.

¶32

The core issue is as to which of the sale deeds are genuine and can be relied upon by which of the parties. 10. Be that as it may, the present writ petition against NBFCs cannot be entertained. The petitioner being an aggrieved party can approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal [“ DRT ”] in terms of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed without prejudice.

¶33

The pending application also stands disposed of.

¶34

As requested a copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

¶35

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.

¶36

AUGUST 22, 2024

¶37

Sadiq

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

W.P. (C) 11543/2024 Page 3 of 3

¶40

Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:22.08.2024 20:18:12

Ashish Kumar v. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Kumar v. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Mj Bizcrafts LLP (through Its Partner Sh. Rajender Kumar) Vs Central Goods and Services Tax, Delhi South Commissionerate (through Its Commissioner) & Ors.

Rajesh Adhikari and Ors. Vs Sashastra Seema Bal and Anr.

Kunal Khatumaria Vs State (Gnct of Delhi) and Ors.

Shri Nath Kushwaha & Ors. Vs Braham Swaroop Sharma & Ors.

Prayag Polytech Private Limited & Anr. Vs Canara Bank

Central Government Welfare Housing Organization Cgewho Vs Inder Jit Singh Ahuja

Mohd. Rashid Vs Union of India & Anr.

Anil Kumar Sinha and Ors. Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Ravi Gupta Vs Delhi Development Authority and Ors.

M/S Air Pro Styles Vs Principal Commissioner of Department of Trade and Taxes, Government of NCT of Delhi

Amit Garg Vs the Secretary (Alt.) Land Building Department and Anr.

Aniket Prakash Vs Union of India & Ors.

Vishwanatha Eswaran Vs Union of India & Ors.

Uppal Housing Private Limited Vs Seema Rani & Ors. & Ors.