Dismissed

Purshottam Sharma v. Ifci Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Delhi HC18 Jan 2024W.P.(C)/746/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court order disposes of a writ petition challenging a DRT order that restrained transfer of specific properties. The Court directed the petitioner to first seek impleadment and modification of the DRT order rather than approaching the High Court, clarifying that the Court did not comment on the merits of the dispute.

What did the court decide?

The present writ petition along with applications is disposed of with liberty to file an application for impleadment/ modification/ clarification/ variation within two weeks before DRT-III.

Purshottam Sharma Vs Ifci Bank Ltd. and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~59.

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 746/2024 & CM APPL. 3272/2024, CM APPL. 3273/2024 CM APPL. 3274/2024

¶4

PURSHOTTAM SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Mr. Anant Gautam, Mr. R.P. Daida, Ms. Shivani Sagar and Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Advs. Versus

¶5

IFCI BANK LTD AND ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Nitin Dahiya, Mr. Sushant Kumar and Mr. Hunny Parashar, Advs.

¶6

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

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

% 18.01.2024

¶9

Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28^th July, 2023, passed in O.A. No. 20 of 2023 by the Ld. DRT-III, Delhi, whereby the Ld. DRT-III has restrained transfer of the subject property i.e, property admeasuring 42.5 AIR land in Khasra No. 151 (total admeasuring 0.7683 Hac) and property admeasuring 15.41 AIR land in Khasra No. 152 (total admeasuring 0.1541Hac) total of 57.66 AIR.

¶10

The petitioner, who was not a party in OA No. 20/2023, is aggrieved by the order as the petitioner claims that he is the owner of the subject property by virtue of sale deed registered on 19^th June, 2019, and has been restrained from transferring the property.

¶11

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/05/2024 at 15:18:19

¶12

He emphasises that the petitioner has no concern whatsoever with the loan transaction which forms the subject matter of the Original Application. He states that the subject property was never mortgaged to the respondent bank.

¶13

Learned counsel for respondent No.1/IFCI, who appears on advance notice states that the transaction of purchase is a fraudulent transaction as the said purchase has taken place subsequent to the invocation of personal guarantee of the respondent No.3 (guarantor).

¶14

This Court is of the view that the petitioner should have, in the first instance, filed an application for impleadment along with an application for modification/ clarification/ variation of the impugned order dated 28^th July, 2023 before the DRT-III.

¶15

Consequently, the present writ petition along with applications is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an application for impleadment/ modification/ clarification/ variation of the impugned order dated 28^th July, 2023. In the event such an application is filed within two weeks from today, the DRT-III is directed to decide the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within six months.

¶16

It is clarified that this Court has not commented on the merits of the controversy. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.

¶17

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶18

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶19

JANUARY 18, 2024/ N.Khanna

¶20

Purshottam Sharma v. Ifci Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purshottam Sharma v. Ifci 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

Qudsiya Vs Cbse & Anr.

Prl Projects and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Airports Authority of India

Chandra Sen Singh Vs Union of India & Anr.

Shiv Pujan Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Janak Kumar Bhatia Vs Union of India & Anr.

Uday Jayant Desai Vs Regional Passport Officer, New Delhi & Anr.

M/S Uncultured, a Unit of Konnect Hospitality Vs the Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors.

Anju Mehta Alias Anju Juneja Vs Govt. NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Shiv Pujan Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Polar Pharma India Limited & Ors.

Manoj Kumar Dwivedi and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shri Venkateshwar Constructions-Vdb Projectes (P) Ltd. (Jv) Vs Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Govt of India

Mr Ranjit Singh Sethi Vs Mr Ranbir Singh Sethi & Ors.

Ms Shivansh Associates Vs Ms Roop Raj Banquet Restro Bar and Ors.