Dismissed

Dalip Kumar Saluja v. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.

DRT23 Jan 2023SA/35/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the application filed by subsequent purchasers challenging a possession notice. The court held that the applicants had no locus standi as they knew about the bank's security interest and their interest was based on an unregistered agreement to sell which does not confer enforceable rights.

What did the court decide?

Stay of physical possession and restraint of actions under the SARFAESI Act were dismissed.

Dalip Kumar Saluja versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶2

sN35t2023

¶3

Dalip Kumar Saluja & Anr Vs

¶4

Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd. & Ors

¶5

23.0t.2023

¶6

Item no. 20

¶7

Present: Sh. Rahul Malhotra, Counsel for the SA applicants Sh. Rishabh, Counsel for the Respondent FI

¶8

Ms. Mona Raina, Counsel for the Respondent No. 6

¶9

Matter is taken through VC

¶10

The present application has been filed on 11.01.2023, by the S applicants, who claim to be bonafide subsequent purchasers, aggrieved by the possession notice dated 02.01.2023, issued by the CMM appointed Receiver, in terms of CMM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi order dated 22.12.2022, informing that physical possession shall be taken on 23.01.2023, of the property in their possession, being Built up Entire Ground Floor, without terrace / roof rights, measuring 200 sq. yds., bearing No. M-61, situated in the area of Village Basai, Darapur in the abadi of an approved colony, Kirti Nagar, in Block No. M, New Delhi - 110015 (hereinafter referred to as the "property in question"). Notice was issued to the respondent bank on 17 .01 .2023.

¶11

Counsel for the applicants submits that the property in^question

¶12

was purchased by Applicant No. 1, subsequent to the mortgage in

¶13

¶14

2021 (loarr availed by seller in 2018), from Respondent No. 2 (since deceased) and only a balance payment of{10.0 Lakhs, out ofthe sale consideration agreed upon, has to be paid by him. The Loan availed by Respondent No. 2 was insured by Respondent No. 6 and the entire loan amount shall be adjusted by the claim amount, when settled by Respondent No. 6. The Respondent No. I had issued an NOC to the seller, which is being filed. Hence, it is prayed to stay the physieal possession by the Receiver on 23.01.2023 and to restrain the respondent bank, against taking any action including possession and sale under the SARFAESI Act, in respect of the property in question, till the disposal of the present SA.

¶15

Per Contra, Counsel for the respondent bank, submits that the applicants have admitted that prior security interest of the answering respondent was in their knowledge, when entering into an ATS on 12.01.2021. A housing Loan was granted to Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 on 31 .07 .201 8, which was classif,red as NPA on 11 .03.2022, due to persistent defaults. A demand notice dated 26.04.2022 for {1,18,86,903/- was served upon the borrowers (also published), followed by symbolic possession notice dated 10.11.2022, duly affixed and published as per the requirements of law. Ld. CMM Tis Hazari Courts, appointed a Receiver vide order dated 22.12.2022, who has served & Affixed notice dated 02.01.2023 to take physical

¶16

¶17

¶18

possession on 23.01.2023. The answering respondent has not issued any NOC and the document filed by the applicants is a forged and fabricated document, not bearing any stamp or signatures of its officials. Even otherwise, they are claiming an interest in the property in question on the basis of an agreement to sell and an affidavit, which has no recognition in the eyes of law. He has cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court^judgment in Suraj Lamp vs. State of Haryana & Ors SLP(C) No. I 391 7 of 20 1 1, in support of his contention. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the present SA.

¶19

I have heard both the counsels. It is a well established principal

¶20

of law that an agreement to sell, does not bestow any rights on the intending purchaser. The application itself admits that the security interest of the respondent FI, was in the knowledge of the applicants, and they cannot even claim to be bonafide purchasers. Hence, the applicants have no locus standi, to file the present application, in respect of the property in question.

¶21

In view of the above facts, the present SA is not maintainable

¶22

and is therefore, hereby dismissed.

¶23

6' 9\

¶24

(Deepak Nath Tirvari) Presiding O(ficer, DRT-III, Delhi Additional Charge DRT-II, Delhi

Dalip Kumar Saluja v. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dalip Kumar Saluja v. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.

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