AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Appellants filed Securitisation Application (S.A.) bearing no.39/2020 titled as Dayal Footwear Pvt. Ltd. & others V. Punjab National Bank & others. They claimed that the property bearing H-52, Block H, Subhas Market, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi was a joint property and as per the family settlement it came to the possession and occupation of the appellants.
Bindu Mehani had obtained a loan by mortgaging the said property, which she could not repay. Bindu Mehani also filed another S.A. bearing no.77/20215 titled as Bindu Mehani V. Punjab National Bank. Both the S.As were said to be pending before DRT-I, Delhi. DRT-I, Delhi vide the final order dated 22.02.2016 disposed of both the S.As bearing no.77/2015 titled as Bindu Mehani V. Punjab National Bank and 39/2020 titled as Dayal Footwear Pvt. Ltd. & others V. Punjab National Bank & others. The relevant portion of the order dated 22.02.2016 is reproduced as under:-
11.However, since borrower of the bank has failed to liquidate the dues of the bank, therefore, bank has proceeded against the secured assets under the provisions of SARFAESI Act for taking possession and also for auction of the impugned property. Several petitions have been filed by the borrowers as well as occupiers of he property in question before this Tribunal. This is also not in dispute that the property in question is in possession of applicants of S.A. no.39/2016 since a very long time. The applicants as well as respondent No.2 to are also close relatives. The property in question was mortgaged with the respondent no.1 bank by respondent no.2 by depositing the original title deeds. On the other hand, the applicants of SA 39/2016 argued that transfer of property by respondent No.5 Mr. Prakash Mehani in favour of his wife Mrs. Bindu Mehani is a sham transaction. A partition suit is already pending between the parties qua the same property. Two floors of the property in question have already been redeemed by the respondent No.2. Incidentally, both the parties laid stress on the argument that they are ready to deposit the entire remaining dues of the respondent bank. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest of justice, the above mentioned SAs as well MA is hereby disposed off with the following directions:-
(i)I allow the redemption of the three floors i.e. first, second and third of the property in question first to the applicants of S.A. No.77/2015/mortgagor. The mortgagor shall pay the entire dues of the respondent bank along with costs and expenses within 30 days from today. The mortgagor is directed to approach the respondent bank within two days from this order and bank shall provide the complete details of outstanding amount and thereafter within 10 days, he will deposit 305 of the outstanding amount and the remaining amount be deposited on or before 21.03.2016. On receipt of the entire outstanding amount from the borrower/mortgagor within the stipulated time, the respondent bank is directed to hand over the title deeds of the mortgaged property to the mortgagor.
(ii)In case the borrower/mortgagor fails to deposit the entire outstanding amount within the time stipulated, the occupiers/applicants in S.A. No.39/2016 who are in possession of the property in question are hereby allowed to pay the entire dues of the respondent bank within 30 days from 22.03.2016 in two fortnightly instalments.
(iii)However, it is made clear that in case the borrowers/occupiers failed to meet any of the aforesaid conditions, the respondent bank is at liberty to sell the aforementioned three floors as per law without any further intervention from this Tribunal. Till then, bank is hereby restrained from putting the property to auction.
12.With the aforesaid directions, the S.A. Nos.77/2015, 39/2016 and M.A. No.16/2015 stands disposed off accordingly. Copy of the order be given dasti to all the parties as per procedure. A copy of the order be kept in all the three files.
M.A. bearing no.41/2016 was filed in S.A. No.77/2015 and M.A. bearing TMA no.51/2016 was filed in S.A. No.39/2016. In M.A. No.41/2026 Bindu Mehani prayed for modification of the order dated 22.02.2016 and sought direction to the Receiver already appointed for taking physical possession of the subject property. DRT-I, Delhi vide order dated 29.03.2016 allowed M.A. No.51/2016 wherein a direction was sought to the respondent no.1 to provide complete details of the outstanding dues within 15 days. DRT-I, Delhi vide the order dated 29.03.2016 directed the respondent no.1 to provide complete details of outstanding dues within 15 days and the appellant M/s Dayal Footwear Pvt. Ltd. was granted 30 days to deposit the outstanding dues.
It is also appearing that Bindu Mehani in terms of the order dated 22.02.2016 failed to pay the outstanding dues for redemption of the subject property and on default by Bindu Mehani, M/s Dayal Footwear Pvt. Ltd. paid the outstanding dues in terms of para 11 (ii) of order dated 22.02.2016.
DRT-I, Delhi vide order dated 04.03.2017 on application bearing M.A. no.70/2016 which was filed in M.A. no.51/2016 observed that the respondent bank has confirmed the deposition of outstanding dues by appellant no.1 M/s Dayal Footwear Private Limited and accordingly a direction was issued to issue sale certificate to M/s Dayal Footwear Private Limited with respect to (1st), (2nd) and (3rd) floors of the property bearing no.H-52, Block-H, Subhash Market, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi.
Appellants filed an miscellaneous application bearing TMA No.51/2022 for modification/ clarification of the order dated 04.03.2017. In this application, it was prayed that the sale certificate be issued in favour of appellant no.3 Satish Kumar Mehani in place of M/s Dayal Footwear Private Limited in respect of the subject property which also be further ordered to be registered before the Sub-Registrar. DRT-II, Delhi vide the impugned order dated 30.01.2026 dismissed the miscellaneous application bearing TMA no.51/2022 wherein it was observed that there was no order that the appellant no.3 was ever permitted to deposit the dues of the bank and the sale certificate was never ordered to be issued in favour of appellant no.3. It was further observed that DRT did not have any right to change the order dated 22.02.2026 and thereafter issue sale certificate in favour of the appellant no.3. Sh. Amrendra Kumar Singh, Advocate for the appellants stated that the entire dues were deposited by appellant no.3 and the sale certificate was ordered to be issued in favour of appellant no.1. In this background he stated that the order dated 31.01.2026 be set aside and the order dated 04.03.2017 be modified to the extent to issue the sale certificate in favour of the appellant no.3.
The perusal of the order dated 04.03.2017 as referred herein above reflects that the outstanding dues were deposited by appellant no.1 M/s Dayal Footwear Private Limited which was also confirmed by respondent no.1 bank. Sh. Amrendra Kumar Singh, the counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments could not show any order which may reflect that appellant no.3 was given liberty to deposit the outstanding amount. DRT-II, Delhi has considered all relevant facts and factual position while passing the impugned order. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.