Anita Sharma vs Jain Coop. Bank Ltd. And Anr.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

The only grievance of the appellant is that a very harsh condition has been imposed upon her by the learned DRT for granting interim relief against her dispossession from the property in question.

The respondent bank is fighting to recover public money of Rs.20 lacs odd in respect of the property in question of which appellant Ms.Anita Sharma claims herself to be the owner of first and second floors. The bank, however, claims that the entire property No.72/2, Gali No.4, KishanKunj Ext., Laxmi Nagar, Delhi has been mortgaged with it by its borrower Ashu Jain to secure the repayment of the loan sanctioned to him. The dispute raised by the appellant before the DRT in her application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act is that the property which the bank claims to have been mortgaged in its favour by its borrower is different from the property in which is appellant is residing and, therefore, she is not liable to be evicted under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The learned DRT while considering the question of grant of interim relief against the dispossession of the appellant from the first and second floors of the property in question has given a finding that prima facie it has come to the conclusion that the identity of the mortgaged property is in doubt and, therefore, in case the appellant is dispossessed from there, she would suffer irreparable loss. However, the learned DRT in order to balance the equities has also directed the appellant to make a payment of Rs.3 lacs to the bank as a condition for grant of interim relief to her.

It is this condition of payment of Rs.3 lacs to the bank with which the appellant is really aggrieved.

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that when the identity of the property itself is in dispute, the learned DRT was not justified in directing the appellant to make any deposit.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent bank has submitted that since the DRT had the discretion to impose any condition while granting interim relief to the appellant, no fault can be found with that exercise of discretion and the direction to the appellant to make deposit of a small amount of Rs.3 lacs with the bank cannot be said to be an unreasonable condition justifying interference of this Tribunal.

It may be noticed that during the course of hearing the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant, without prejudice, will make a further payment of Rs.30,000/- with the bank to make the total payment to Rs.1 lac since pursuant to the direction already given in this appeal, she has made a payment of Rs.70,000/-, which fact is not disputed by counsel for the bank.

Considering all the facts and circumstances and particularly the fact that the learned DRT itself has come to a prima facie conclusion that the identity of the property mortgaged in bank's favour by its borrower is doubtful and will have to be established during the trial, this Tribunal is of the view that this appeal can be disposed of by continuing the order of status quo granted by the DRT in favour of the appellant subject to appellant making a further payment of Rs.30,000/- to the bank within a week. However, to ensure that with the grant of interim relief to the appellant the matter does not get lingered on indefinitely and bank's interest is not prejudiced, counsel for the appellant has assured full cooperation for conclusion of trial within the period which this Tribunal may fix. Accordingly, it is ordered that the DRT will dispose of the pending S.A. within a period of 45 days. In case the bank feels that the appellant/security applicant is indulging in dilatory tactics, it will be at liberty to approach this Tribunal for revocation / modification of the interim relief granted to the appellant.

Parties shall appear before the DRT on 1.10.2019, the date already fixed in the matter, for receiving further directions in the matter. The period of 45 days for disposal of the S.A. will start from that date and the learned Presiding Officer shall fix the dates of hearing accordingly. The parties shall appear before the DRT on the said date on their own and it will not be necessary for the DRT to issue any notice of appearance in the matter.

Copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal below.