$~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5278/2024 & CM APPL. 21584/2024, CM APPL.

21585/2024 MAGNUM STEELS LTD & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Harshit Anand, Mr. Rohan Poddar and Mr. Raghav Anand, Advocates versus ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LTD. & ANR.

..... Respondent Through: Ms. Usha Singh and Mr. Shahruk Inam, Advocates for R-1 % Date of Decision: 10^th April, 2024 CORAM:

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, ACJ: (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 20^th January, 2024 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal – I, Delhi (‘DRT’) in T.A. No. 165/2022¹ allowing the said application and directing the Petitioners herein to pay to the Respondent No.1, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs. 2,74,31,840.37/- as on 26^th November, 2021 together with pendente lite and future interest @12.50% per annum with

1 An application filed by the Petitioner under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging the Notice

issued by the Respondent under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the said Act.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAHIMA W.P.(C) 5278/2024 Page 1 of 10 monthly rent from date of filing of the application till date of realization, failing which the said amount shall be recovered from the sale of mortgaged property bearing no. 312 and 313, 3^rd floor, P.P. Tower, Tower B, Plot No. C- 1, 2 and 3, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi without roof rights having super area of 2850 sq. ft. (‘secured asset’).

Brief facts

2. The Petitioner No.1 herein had executed a Loan Agreement dated 21^st August, 2015 with the Respondent No.2, i.e. Bajaj Finance Limited, against mortgage of the secured asset, for a sum of Rs. 2,97,00,000/-. It is stated that subsequently, the said loan account along with its debt/ receivables was assigned to the Respondent No.1, i.e. Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd.) w.e.f. 24^th June, 2021

2.1. The loan account of Petitioner No.1 herein was declared as Non- Performing Asset (‘NPA’). It is stated that thereafter, on 20^th December, 2021, the Respondent No.1 issued a Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’), seeking repayment of the alleged debt to the extent of Rs. 2,73,92,579.89/- along with future interest and charges.

2.2. It is stated that thereafter, the Respondent No.1 in addition to the aforesaid Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, also filed an application being T.A. No. 165 of 2022 before the DRT under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (‘RDDB Act’), for recovery of the alleged debts.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAHIMA W.P.(C) 5278/2024 Page 2 of 10

2.3. It is stated that on 23^rd March, 2022, the Respondent No. 1 filed an application, [CC No. 3758/2022] under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (‘CMM’), for appointment of a receiver to take possession of secured asset. It is stated that the said application was allowed by the CMM vide order dated 22^nd April, 2022 and a receiver was appointed to take possession of the secured asset.

2.4. It is stated that subsequently, the DRT vide impugned order dated 20^th January, 2024, allowed the Respondent No. 1’s application i.e., T.A. No. 165/2022 filed under Section 19 of the RDDB Act and held the Petitioners to be liable for the outstanding amount. The DRT-I directed the Petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 2,74,31,840.37/- along with interest within 30 days; failing which it was directed that the said amount shall be recovered by Respondent No.1 from the sale of the secured asset and in case of shortfall, the balance to be recovered from sale of other assets of the Petitioners. The DRT-I further directed issuance of a recovery certificate in favour of the Respondent No.1. Admittedly, no appeal, as provided under Section 20 of