SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(MP) 92

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
Sheel Nagu, Vishal Mishra, JJ.
Hariprakash Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 17985 of 2020
Decided On : 13-01-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondent:Ankur Modi, Learned Additional Advocate General and Ravi Chaudhary, Learned Counsel

The duty of parties and their counsel to double-check and verify information before presenting it to the court, and the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal in matters related to recovery proceedings under the SARFESI Act.

Headnote:

Suppression of Fact - Recovery Proceedings - SARFESI Act - [Section 34, SARFESI Act] - The court dismissed the writ petition due to the petitioner's suppression of material information and misleading the court. The recovery proceedings initiated by the bank under the SARFESI Act fall under the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, and the civil court does not have the authority to entertain such matters. The court imposed costs on the petitioner for misleading the court and directed the amount to be deposited for the benefit of children residing at Mercy Home during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a writ petition against the in-action of the respondents in deciding the objection filed by the petitioner and the steps taken for auctioning the petitioner's property. The petitioner's property was subject to a civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sale, and recovery proceedings were initiated by the bank under the SARFESI Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner suppressed material information and tried to mislead the court by wrongly mentioning the name of the father of the borrower. The court also held that the recovery proceedings under the SARFESI Act fall under the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, and the civil court does not have the authority to entertain such matters.

Issues: Suppression of material information, jurisdiction of civil court in recovery proceedings under the SARFESI Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of parties and their counsel to double-check and verify before making any presentation to the court. It reiterated the responsibility and care required in presenting information to the court. The court also highlighted the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal in matters related to recovery proceedings under the SARFESI Act.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, imposed costs on the petitioner, and directed the amount to be deposited for the benefit of children residing at Mercy Home during the COVID-19 pandemic.

ORDER :

Vishal Mishra, J.

1. The present petition is being filed being aggrieved by the in-action on the part of the respondents especially respondent no. 3 not deciding the objection filed by the petitioner in Case No. q/reader-1/Gwalior/2019 and the respondent no. 3 is taking steps for auctioning the property of the petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner owns and possess the built up house situated at Pradhan Sahab Ka Bada, Topewala Mohalla, Jiwajiganj, Lashkar, Gwalior bearing Municipal House No. 39/425/14 (old) subsequent No. 39/1218 and present Municipal House Number is 1179. The four corner of the built up house is mentioned in para 5.1 of the petition.

2. It is submitted that the previous owner namely Yash Pradhan S/o Late Shri Avinashchand Pradhan entered into an agreement to sale in favour of the petitioner's wife namely Smt. Krishna Sharma, by which he agreed to sale the aforesaid house to the petitioner's wife and in part performance of the agreement the possession of the said property was handed over to the petitioner's wife on 15.3.1990. Subsequently a sale deed was not executed, therefore, a civil suit was preferred being RCSA No. 495/2019 which is for specific performance of agreement to sale. The civil suit is pending consideration and during the pendency of the civil suit, Smt. Krishna Sharma died on 5.11.2018, therefore, the petitioner's name was substituted in place of Smt. Krishna Sharma. On 29.12.2018 respondent no. 4 Bank leveled a notice at the conspicuous part of the petitioner's house wherein it has been mentioned that the house no. 39/1080 is mortgaged by one Mr. Sanjay Sharma, S/o Hariprasad Sharma Proprietor Aashirwad Group. Thereafter the proceedings were initiated by the Bank and in pursuance to those proceedings the respondent no. 3 Tahsildar has issued notice on 18.11.2019. Immediately on receiving the notice, the petitioner has submitted the detailed reply/objection on 20.11.2019. The objection has not been decided by the respondent no. 3-Tahsildar and on 2.11.2020 the employee of the respondent no. 4-Bank came to the house of the petitioner and trying to forcibly dispossess the petitioner from the house. It is argued that as the civil suit is pending consideration and the petitioner's being the bonafide purchaser of the property in question and in pursuance to the notice the objections have already been submitted before the concerning Tahsildar, therefore, prior to initiation of many proceedings regarding auctioning of the property of the petitioner, the objection ought to have been decided by the learned Tahsildar. The following reliefs is prayed for by the petitioner in the petition:

"(I) That, respondent no. 3 Tehsildar, Tehsil District Gwalior may kindly be directed to decide the objection filed by the petitioner in Case No. Q/Reader-1/Gwalior/2019.

(II) That, till deciding the objection filed by the petitioner respondent may kindly be directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner for dispossessed from house in question.

(III) Any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted. Costs be awarded."

3. During the court proceedings on earlier date i.e. on 9.12.2020 the counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 has pointed out that material fact has been suppressed by the petitioner to the effect that the loan was actually taken by his son Sanjay Sharma and to suppress the aforesaid fact the name of father of Sanjay Sharma has been mentioned as Hari Prasad Sharma instead of Hari Prakash Sharma. This Court has directed to the petitioner to file a specific affidavit with respect to the aforesaid suppression of fact. In pursuance to the same an affidavit has been filed by the petitioner dated 15.12.2020 and in the affidavit the name of Hari Prakash Sharma alias Hari Prasad Sharma, S/o Late Shri Jagannath Prasad Sharma is being mentioned. In para 4 of the affidavit, it is mentioned that his son Sanjay Sharma h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top