Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 340
High Court of Delhi
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG & PRATIBHA RANI, JJ.
Neelima Bagaria
Versus
Gnct Of Delhi & Others
LPA No.827 of 2011
Decided on : 06-02-2012
For the Appellant:Pallav Saxena, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, Ms. Sangeeta Sondhi, R3, Rishi Agrawala, Nakul Mohta, Advocates.
Abuse of the process of the law disentitles a person to seek discretionary relief from a Court of Equity.
Headnote:
Assignment Deed - Civil Suit - Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act 1993, Indian Stamp Act 1899, SARFAESI Act - The court discussed the issues related to the assignment deed dated 29th March 2006, its validity, stamp duty, and perjury allegations. The legal provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act 1993, Indian Stamp Act 1899, and SARFAESI Act were interpreted and applied in the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a writ petition seeking directions to impound an assignment deed dated 29th March 2006. The court dismissed the petition as a civil suit on the same matter was filed subsequently and the appellant could seek appropriate remedies if the suit was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant could not seek revival of the writ petition after the suit was dismissed and held that there was gross suppression in the writ petition. The court also noted that the appellant and her husband were abusing the process of the law.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the assignment deed, stamp duty, perjury allegations, and the legality of a notification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's actions amounted to abuse of the process of the law and dismissed the appeal, imposing costs against the appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and costs were imposed against the appellant.
PRADEEPNANDRAJOG, J.
1. WP(C) No.6877/2009 filed by the appellant was dismissed vide order dated 27.08.2010 with the observation that such appropriate remedies as may be available to the appellant if a civil suit filed by her challenging the assignment deed dated 29.03.2006 was dismissed. The said suit being Civil Suit No.27/2010 (somewhere recorded as bearing No.77/2010) was dismissed on 19.01.2011 on the ground that the appellant did not have the locus standi to question the deed of assignment. The appellant thereafter filed CM No.6843/2011 praying that the writ petition be revived and disposed of on merits, which was disposed of vide order dated 27.08.2010.
2. The order dated 27.08.2010 reads as under:-
“1. The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of directions to Respondent No.2 the Collector of Stamp to impound an assignment deed dated 29th March 2006 stated to have been executed by State Bank of India (“SBI”) in favour of Standard Chartered Bank (“SCB”) Respondent No.3 herein.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has produced a copy of an order dated 19th May 2010 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I (DRT), Delhi in IA No. 85 of 2010 in OA No. 480 of 2000 (SBI v. Vishal Global Ltd. ) where in an application filed by Defendant No.2 in the said OA seeking inter alia the relief of holding the assignment deed dated 29th March 2006 to be null and void being based upon a fraudulent averment made therein, the DRT directed the parties to approach the Civil Court to decide the issue. Learned counsel further states that pursuant to the above order dated 19th May 2010, Vishal Global Ltd. the Defendant No.2 in OA No. 480 of 2000 before the DRT, has on 29th May 2010 filed a Civil Suit No.27 of 2010 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, New Delhi for a declaration that the said assignment deed dated 29th March 2006, as well as a subsequent amendment to it on 15th February 2010 is null and void.
3. Obviously the prayer of the Petitioner to the same effect in the present petition would stand satisfied in the event that the above civil suit is decreed. In any event the Civil Court is seized of the issue whether the said assignment deed is to be declared null and void. In the circumstances, this Court does not consider it necessary to continue with the present petition.
4. While disposing of the writ petition, it is clarified that in the event the Civil Suit is dismissed, or the relief of declaring the assignment deed dated 29th March 2006 to be null and void is refused, it would be open to the Petitioner to seek such appropriate remedies as may be available to her in law.
5. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.”
3. We may note at the outset that disposing of WP(C) No.6877/2009, the learned Single Judge had held that the issue raised in the writ petition was the same in respect whereof CS No.27/2010 was filed by the appellant and since a Civil Court was seized of the matter, though the suit was filed subsequently, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the Court did not consider it necessary to continue with the petition.
4. Obviously, whatever may be the reason for the suit to be dismissed, the appellant could not seek a revival of the writ petition and if she was aggrieved by the reason for which the suit filed by her was dismissed, appellate remedy had to be availed of.
5. She filed CM No.6843/2011 informing that suit filed by her challenging the Deed of Assignment was dismissed and hence prayer made was for the writ petition to be revived.
6. Disposing of CM No.6843/2011, the learned Single Judge held that there was gross suppression in the writ petition and for said reason the learned Single Judge has held that he found no merit to recall the order dated 27.08.2010 and hear the writ petition on merits. CM No.6843/2011 was accordingly dismissed.
7. Suffice would it be to state that the appellant could not seek revival of the writ petition if the suit filed by her was dismissed, whatever be
