$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8131/2020 & CM APPL. 26390/2020 SANJAY DHINGRA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, Ms. Pratiksha Dwivedi, Advocates (M:7697793293)

Email: tyagi@dhirasociates.com versus IDBI BANK LIMITED & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Counsel and Mr. Siddharth Barua, Advocate for IDBI Bank.

Mob: 9899040660 CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

J U D G M E N T

02.07.2024 MINI PUSHKARNA, J:

1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition is aggrieved by the steps initiated by the respondent no.1-IDBI Bank, New Delhi, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”), for the loan facilities granted by respondent no.2-IDBI, Dubai to respondent no.3-

company.

2. The respondent no.3-company, which is based in Dubai and has its registered office in Delhi, availed the said loan facilities from the Dubai Branch of IDBI Bank. In this regard, a Facility Agreement dated 04^th December, 2012 was entered between the respondent no.2-bank and respondent no.3-company situated in Dubai.

Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 8131/2020 Page 1 of 25 Digitally Signed

3. The terms of the amended Sanction Letter dated 14^th November, 2016, also contemplated creation of Personal Guarantee by the petitioner in favour of respondent no.2-bank, situated in Dubai. Thus, the petitioner had mortgaged immovable property bearing Khasra No. 4072/243, 4071/243, 4070/243 & 4069/243 situated in Golden Park Colony on Rampura Road, Village Basai Darapur (“secured asset”) as security for the aforesaid loan facilities vide Declaration and Undertaking dated 06^th December, 2017. Pursuant to this mortgage, the original documents for the secured asset were also handed over to the New Delhi Branch of IDBI Bank on 07^th December, 2017.

4. Since the respondent no.3-company defaulted on the debt, the respondent no.1-bank enforced its security interest against the mortgaged property/secured asset under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act.

5. Thus, pursuant to the proceedings initiated by respondent no.1-bank under the SARFAESI Act, vide CC No. 47/4, the learned CMM (West), Tis Hazari Court, vide his order dated 12^th March, 2020, appointed a Receiver for taking over physical possession of the secured asset. Subsequently, by order dated 24^th September, 2020, the learned CMM (West), Tis Hazari Court, extended the time period for the Receiver to take possession of the secured asset.

6. Pursuant to the aforesaid, the Court Receiver issued Possession Notices dated 19^th March, 2020 and 03^rd October, 2020, pursuant to which, physical possession of the property in question/secured asset, was taken over by the respondent no.1-bank.

7. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash/set aside the said Possession Notices issued by the Court Receiver. There is Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 8131/2020 Page 2 of 25 Digitally Signed further prayer for setting aside the orders dated 12^th March, 2020 and 24^th September, 2020 passed by the learned CMM (West), Tis Hazari Court, pursuant to which the aforesaid Possession Notices, had been issued by the Court Receiver.

8. On behalf of the petitioner, the following submissions have been made:

8.1 The respondent no.2-bank, which has sanctioned and disbursed the financial facility to the respondent no.3-company, and against which security has been created by the petitioner in favour of respondent no.2- bank, are not situated in India. Accordingly, the provisions of the SARFAESI Act cannot be invoked by the respondent no.1-IDBI, New Delhi, on behalf of respondent no.2-IDBI, Dubai, as there is no debt due to the respondent no.2 under the Indian Law. Debt, if any, due to the respondent no.2, would be in terms of the laws of United Arab Emirates (“UAE”).

8.2 In terms of Section 5(c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the respondent no.2 is not a banking company in India, as respondent no.2 is not