Dismissed

Naseem Bano v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Delhi HC17 May 2024W.P.(C)/7149/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a borrower to restrain bank possession and expedite DRT proceedings was dismissed. The court held the petition was not maintainable as the debtor had already approached the DRT (Relief Application No. 2440/2024) on the same cause of action, rendering the writ application infructuous.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and pending applications stand dismissed.

Naseem Bano Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Ors. — Banking and Recovery | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~33

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 7149/2024

¶4

NASEEM BANO ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mrs. Shimpy Arman Sharma with Mr. Rahul Gupta, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mahip Datta Parashar, Ms. Sanya Lamba and Ms. Muskan Mehra, Advocates for R-1 Ms. Avni Singh, Advocate for R- 2/GNCTD

¶8

% Date of Decision: 17^th May, 2024

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA JUDGMENT

¶11

MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)

¶12

CM APPL. 29802/2024 (for exemption)

¶13

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

¶15

W.P.(C) 7149/2024

¶16

Present writ petition has been filed inter alia seeking expeditious disposal of Securitization Application bearing no. TSA/872/2022, pending adjudication before Debts Recovery Tribunal – II, Delhi and restraining the Court Receiver from taking physical possession of the property i.e., first floor of the property bearing plot no. 17 admeasuring 200 sq. yds. in Block

¶17

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Hemant Pratap Singh Signing Da te:1 8.05.2024 18:00:05

¶18

W.P.(C) 7149/2024 Page 1 of 4

¶19

No. B-4, in the layout plan of Safdarjung Development Residential Scheme (‘subject property’) until the disposal of TSA/872/2022. The Petitioner also seeks a direction to the Respondent bank from initiating any coercive action against the subject property until the disposal of TSA/872/2022.

¶20

Brief Facts of the present petition

¶21

The TSA/872/2022 is an application filed under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’), by the Petitioner seeking a prayer to set aside orders dated 05^th March, 2021, 20^th March, 2022 and 23^rd May, 2022 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (‘CMM’) appointing a Receiver for taking over possession of the subject property.

¶22

The said application was listed before the Tribunal for adjudicating interim relief as prayed by the Petitioner to restrain the Respondent Bank/Court Receiver from taking physical possession of the subject property. The Tribunal vide order dated 08^th July, 2022 rejected the prayer of petitioner for interim relief as the Petitioner was unable to satisfy the Tribunal that there exists any illegality or irregularity in the measures taken by the Respondent Bank and the Court Receiver. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, Petitioner filed an appeal bearing no. Misc. Appeal No. 161/2022 before Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (‘DRAT’), however, the Petitioner couldn’t satisfy the statutory condition of pre-deposit as per section 18 of SARFAESI Act and therefore, DRAT disposed of the appeal on 30^th August, 2022 with a direction to the Respondent Bank to give a fifteen days advance notice before taking the physical possession of the subject property.

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed By:Hemant Pratap Singh Signing Da te:1 8.05.2024 18:00:05

¶25

W.P.(C) 7149/2024 Page 2 of 4

¶26

The Respondent bank thereafter again approached the CMM to extend the time granted to the Court Receiver for taking over possession. The said application was allowed by the CMM vide order dated 14^th March, 2024 and the Receiver has been granted extended time to execute the order dated 05^th March, 2021. In furtherance of the said extension, the Court Receiver issued a notice to take over physical possession of the subject property on 20.05.2024.

¶27

Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an application before the DRT being I.A. No. 2440/2024 for amendment of TSA/872/2022, seeking relief(s) against the order of CMM dated 14^th March, 2024 and notice issued by the Court Receiver. Notice in this application was issued on 08^th May, 2024 and the matter is listed before the DRT today i.e., 17^th May, 2024. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that though the I.A. No. 2440/2024 was filed before the DRT last week, yet the Tribunal failed to grant any protection and simplicitor issued notice for 17^th May, 2024. She states that the Petitioner is seeking protection against dispossession pending the final disposal of TSA/872/2022.

¶28

In reply, learned senior counsel for the Respondent bank states that in view of the fact that I.A. No. 2440/2024 is listed for hearing today before DRT, the present writ petition ought not to be entertained. He further states that the Petitioner’s earlier application seeking stay was dismissed on merits by DRT vide order dated 08^th July, 2022 and the present writ petition is an abuse of process. He states that another writ petition filed by the brother of the Petitioner being W.P.(C) No. 6899/2024 pertaining to different floors in the same immovable property already stands dismissed by this Court vide order dated 14^th May, 2024.

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed By:Hemant Pratap Singh Signing Da te:1 8.05.2024 18:00:05

¶31

W.P.(C) 7149/2024 Page 3 of 4

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that the present writ petition is not maintainable. The Petitioner’s earlier application seeking interim relief was dismissed vide order dated 08^th July, 2022, which has attained finality. The DRT in that order recorded that all the measures under the SARFAESI Act have been taken by the Respondent bank and there is no illegality in the proceedings initiated for taking physical possession. Even otherwise, on the same cause of action as pleaded in this writ petition, the Petitioner has already approached the DRT by way of I.A. No. 2440/2024, which is listed today and therefore, the relief sought in the present petition for issuing directions to DRT for expeditious hearing is infructuous.

¶33

Accordingly, the present petition along with pending applications stands dismissed.

¶34

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶35

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶36

MAY 17, 2024/ hp/AKT/MG

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed By:Hemant Pratap Singh Signing Da te:1 8.05.2024 18:00:05

¶39

W.P.(C) 7149/2024 Page 4 of 4

Naseem Bano v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naseem Bano v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chuknoo Securities Limited through Its Director Sanjeev Agarwal Vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 28 & Ors.

Chuknoo Securities Limited through Its Director Sanjeev Agarwal Vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 28 & Ors.

Chuknoo Securities Limited through Its Director Sanjeev Agarwal Vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 28 & Ors.

Chuknoo Securities Limited through Its Director Sanjeev Agarwal Vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 28 Delhi & Ors.

Chhavi Vs University of Delhi

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Pankaj Sharma Vs Insurance Ombudsman and Anr.

Sks College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Ors.

M/S Ecartes Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nicdc Logistics Data Services Ltd. and Anr.

Rekha Suneesh Vs Punjab National Bank

Court on Its Own Motion Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors.

Mrs Rajni Kapur and Anr. Vs Mr Devinder Kumar Diwan and Ors.

Ms Ishrat Adil Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Indian Professional Nurses Association Vs Indian Nursing Council & Anr.