Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JAYANT NATH, J.
ASHOK KUMAR RAIZADA – Plaintiff
versus
THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN & ANR – Defendants
CS(OS) 1730/2010
Decided on : 09.12.2013
SARFAESI Act - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Section 34
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that certain sale deeds related to a property were forged and fabricated, and to establish ownership of the property. The defendants claimed that the suit was barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was maintainable as there were serious allegations of fraud, and the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case. The court also directed the parties to maintain status quo of possession and title of the property.
Issues: Jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, validity of sale deeds, ownership of the property, and allegations of fraud.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the suit was maintainable as there were serious allegations of fraud, and the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case. The court also considered the balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The court held that the suit was maintainable and directed the parties to maintain status quo of possession and title of the property.
CS (OS) No.1730/2010
1. On 8.5.2012, this Court had framed a preliminary issue which reads as under:-
“1.Whether the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit on account of Section 34 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002? OPD”
Arguments were heard on the said issue.
2. The present Suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of declaration holding that the Sale Deeds dated 15.4.2005 and 29.6.2005 in favour of Late Chander PrakashAggarwal deposited with defendant No.1/ICICI Bank Limited (previously The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd) and Punjab National Bank/defendant No.2 respectively and other related documents relating to property No.A-59, Shankar Garden, New Delhi are forged and fabricated and do not pertain to the said property and that the sale deed dated 11.2.1986 of the plaintiff related to the said property are genuine and to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the said property and has nothing to do with the loan granted by defendants No.1 and 2 to late Shri Chander Prakash Aggarwal.
3. As per the plaint it is averred that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the said property/land No.A-59, Shankar Garden, New Delhi measuring 216-2/3 sq.yds which the plaintiff is stated to have purchased vide Registered Sale Deed dated 11.2.1986 from Shri Sarjivan Kumar Sood, Shri Puran Chand Sood, Shri Ashok Kumar Sood and Shri Pradeep Kumar Sood all sons of late Shri Chaman Lal Sood. It is stated that on 18.12.2008 plaintiff received information from the neighbours that a notice has been pasted on its boundary wall whereby a Receiver has been appointed. It revealed that one Shri Alok Gupta had preferred an Appeal and certain orders had been passed in favour of Shri Alok Gupta. The plaintiff claims that on enquiry it was revealed that the said Shri Alok Gupta had produced Sale Deed dated 26.10.1971. The plaintiff claims that on verification from the records of the Sub Registrar Office, no Sale Deed was found to be registered. The plaintiff hence filed FIR No.88/2009 with the relevant Police Station. It is averred that a challan has been filed by the police. The plaintiff filed an appeal being S.A. No.474/2008 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III and on 23.12.2008 the DRT-III was pleased to quash the order of attachment by the Authorized Officer declaring that the property of the plaintiff cannot be taken as a secured asset of the bank.
4. It is stated that despite the said order from DRT plaintiff was informed by defendant No.1/Bank of Rajasthan that the property stood mortgaged to them by Shri Chander Prakash Aggarwal who had expired in May, 2009. It was further revealed that the said Shri Chander Prakash Aggarwal had also taken a loan from Defendant No.2/Punjab National Bank to the tune of Rs.3.75 crores and mortgaged the said suit property by depositing title deed. Punjab National Bank/defendant No.2 proceeded under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act) The plaintiff filed WP(C) No.10510/2009 to restrain the defendants from taking possession of Suit property. Ultimately, it is stated that from the Counter-Affidavit filed by the banks it was revealed that the Sale Deed created in favour of late Shri Chander Prakash Aggarwal, which was deposited with the Bank of Rajasthan is dated 15.4.2005 and is executed by one Shri Jagdish Chander as Attorney of Smt. Mayawati. The Sale Deed deposited with the defendant No.2/Punjab National Bank by the said late Shri Chander Prakash Aggarwal dated 29.6.2005 is stated to have been executed by one Shri Lehja Singh Yadav as General Power of Attorney of Smt.Mayawati, wife of Shri Sardari Mal Gupta.
5. The Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court on 28.7.2010 observing that disputed questions of facts, cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction and, therefo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
