CS(OS) 380/2022 Page 1 of 15

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of Decision: 13^th September, 2022

+

CS(OS) 380/2022 & I.A. 9842/2022 (O-XXXIX R-1 & 2 of CPC),

I.A. 15001/2022 (O-XII R-6 of CPC)

SANDIP SINGH

..... Plaintiff

Through:

Mr. Prag Chawla and Ms. Jaspreet

Kaur, Advocates along with plaintiff

in person.

versus

MIS CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT

AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ORS...... Defendants

Through:

Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Mr. Sushant

Bali,

Mr.

Kunal

Mittal

and

Mr.Maitreya Saha, Advocates for D-1

along with Mr. Sidhartha Rastogi,

Authorized Representative of D-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

AMIT BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

I.A. 11148/2022 (of the defendant no.1 u/O-VII R-11 of CPC)

1.

The present suit was filed on 23^rd June, 2022 seeking following

reliefs:

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003677

CS(OS) 380/2022 Page 2 of 15

the Plaintiff.”

2.

Summons in the suit were issued on 24^th June 2022 and the parties

were directed to maintain status quo vide order dated 24^th June, 2022.

3.

Subsequently, this application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed on behalf of the defendant no.1. Notice in

this application was issued on 20^th July, 2022 and reply has been filed on

behalf of the plaintiff.

4.

At the outset, the counsel for the defendant no.1 submits that the

property bearing no. D-45, area measuring 350 sq. yards (approximately),

Corner Ring Road side situated in the area of Village Basai Darapur, Delhi in

colony known as Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027 (Suit Property), was

mortgaged by the plaintiff in order to avail a loan of Rs.6,25,00,000/- from

defendant no.1. The equitable mortgage was created in favour of the

defendant no.1 by deposit of the gift deed dated 4^th May, 2011 in favour of

the plaintiff in respect of the suit property.

5.

Counsel for the defendant no.1 further submits that:

i)

Upon failure of the plaintiff to repay the aforesaid loan, the defendant

no.1 initiated action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002

(SARFAESI Act) in relation to the suit property.

ii)

The present suit is based on concealment of facts and various judicial

orders passed in respect of other civil proceedings initiated by the

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003677

CS(OS) 380/2022 Page 3 of 15

plaintiff against the defendant no.1, details of which are mentioned in

paragraph 8 of the present application.

iii)

The plaintiff has deliberately misled the Court by submitting that the

Gift Deed dated 4^th May, 2011 in respect of the suit property was

deposited as a security towards the loan amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/-.

iv)

Under the garb of mandatory injunction for return of the Gift Deed of

the suit property, the plaintiff is seeking a relief which would amount

to redemption of the mortgage and in view of the proceedings initiated

by the defendant no.1 against the plaintiff under the provisions of

SARFAESI Act, the said relief cannot be granted. Therefore, the

present suit is barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act.

v)

Allegations of fraud have been made in the plaint without giving any

particulars in order to get out of the bar under Section 34 of the

SARFAESI Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of

the Supreme Court in Electrosteel Castings Ltd. v. UV Asset

Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2022) 2 SCC 573.

6.

Per contra, the counsel appearing on be