Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J.
Ireo Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Vibhor Home Developers Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 202 of 2022 & I.As. 9821 of 2022, 10814 of 2022
Decided On : 26-07-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. urgent directions for stay under sarfaesi act. (Para 1) |
| 2. jurisdictional argument under sarfaesi act. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. petitioners' authority contesting notice validity. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. background on loan and sale proceedings. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. auction challenges and subsequent settlements. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. details on settlement deed terms. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. further settlement agreements elaboration. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 8. confirmation of auction sale by division bench. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 9. notice for possession following court rulings. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 10. petitioners' concerns over confidentiality in prior rulings. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 11. allegations against dishonest actions of respondents. (Para 31 , 32) |
| 12. legal citations supporting petitioners' position. (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 13. respondents' claims and contract interpretation. (Para 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 14. counterarguments regarding the enforceability of mou. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 15. arguments on enforcement and timing of agreements. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 16. analysis of agreements and severability issues. (Para 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 17. legal references on contract enforceability. (Para 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 18. further analysis on timing and agreements. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 19. confirmation of parties' obligations post court order. (Para 57 , 58 , 59) |
| 20. assessment of enforcement options in legal proceedings. (Para 60 , 61) |
| 21. final orders regarding the preservation of property. (Para 62 , 63) |
| 22. resolution and closure of the case with directives. (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71) |
JUDGMENT
Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral)
I.A. 10814/2022
1. This is an application on behalf of the petitioners seeking urgent directions praying for stay of operation of the notice dated 12.07.2022 issued by Duty Magistrate, Tehsildar, Wazirabad, Gurugram, Haryana under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter, referred to as SARFAESI Act). By way of the said notice dated 12.07.2022, it has been informed to the petitioners that the possession of the land admeasuring 5.70 acres situated in Village Behrampur, Sector 59, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurugram, currently in possession with the petitioners, shall be taken on 27.07.2022 with the assistance of police force.
2. On behalf of the respondents, it has been argued that this Court will not have jurisdiction under the SARFAESI Act to deal with the notice issued by the Duty Magistrate, Gurugram under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Attention of this Court was drawn to Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to contend that the remedy of the petitioners will lie by filing an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in terms of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
3. Ld. Senior Counsel for the respondent also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 782, to contend that the efficacious remedy of the petitioners herein would be an appeal before the DRT under Sections 13(4)/Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
4. On the other hand, on behalf of the petitioners, it was contended that the notice dated 12.07.2022 issued by the Duty Magistrate, Gurugram was without any authority, as it is the respondents who have approached the said authorities, and not the PNB Housing Finance Limited, which is the lender in the present case.
5. I have given my thoughtful consideration and I am in agreement with ld. Senior Counsel for the respondents that the present application filed before this Court is not maintainable. In view thereof, the present application is dismissed thereby holding that this Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on the notice dated 12.07.2022 issued by the Duty Magistrate, Gurugram under the SARFAESI Act.
6. The present application is dismissed accordingly.
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 202/2022
7. The instant petition
In a contract for sale of immovable property, normally it is presumed that time is not the essence of the contract. Even if there is an express stipulation to that effect, the said presumption can be....
Specific performance of a determinable agreement cannot be enforced under the Specific Relief Act, emphasizing the need for timely compliance with contract terms.
The court upheld the specific performance of the Joint Venture Agreement and granted interim measures under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to prevent the appellant from disrupting....
Personal guarantees impose binding restrictions on asset dealings, reaffirming the need for arbitration in disputes regarding mortgages and lending agreements.
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
