CR-2195-2021

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

124

CR-2195-2021

Date of decision : 12.072022

Punjab National Bank

...Petitioner

Versus

Surender Singh Bedi and others

....Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:

Mr.R.S.Bhatia, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate

for respondent No.1.

Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate

for respondent No.3.

*****

ANIL KSHETARPAL

, J. (ORAL)

1.

The nationalised bank assails the correctness of the order

passed by the trial Court on 30.07.2021. It is the stand of the bank that

the jurisdiction of a Civil Court is barred under Section 34 of

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, 'the 2002 Act'). The Civil Court has

rejected the application on the ground that the plaintiff has alleged fraud

played on him by the secured creditor i.e. the Bank. The Court has relied

upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals

Ltd. etc. vs. Union of India and another, AIR 2004 SCC 2371.

2.

The petitioner before this Court is alleged to have stood as a

guarantor to the loan amount disbursed to M/s Saphire Digital Printers

ANJU GOEL

2022.07.19 10:35

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CR-2195-2021

-2-

(defendant No.1). On default, the proceeding under the 2002 Act has

been initiated against the borrowers as well as guarantors. The respondent

(plaintiff) claims to have not only signed the agreement of guarantee but

he also deposited the original title deeds with the bank in lieu of the loan

amount. In substance, the plaintiff while filing the suit has alleged as

under :-

“4. That as a matter of fact, Mr Neeraj Choudhary

proprietor of M/s Sapphire Digital Printers was a

close friend of the brother of the plaintiff who told

the plaintiff that his father was on a very higher

rank in a Nationalized Bank and that he could

arrange Loan Against Property LAP very easily

against the property bearing No 49 Sector-15,

Faridabad for which initially he took the

photocopies of the title of the property and later

on assured the plaintiff that proposal was

accepted and that original papers along-with ID

proof and certain signed blank and stamp papers

were required for further formality which were

handed over to him but the plaintiff came to know

later on that said Mr. Neeraj mis-utilized the

documents and signatures by scanning the same

and convened the same to the alleged Guarantee

Deed dated 26-02-2016 in the loan account of his

Firm known as M/s Sapphire Digital Printers The

plaintiff ran from pillar to post to lodge an FIR

against said Sh Neeraj and was successful later on

when FIR No 260 of 2019 under Section 406/420

IPC was lodged against Mr. Neeraj and Bank

Officials (who helped Mr Neeraj in committing

fraud with the plaintiff).

X

X

X

X

X

ANJU GOEL

2022.07.19 10:35

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CR-2195-2021

-3-

8. That It is further submitted that the bank

officials of the defendant No 3 in connivance with

the defendant No 1 i.e. proprietor of M/s Sapphire

Digital Printers 86 Others committed criminal

breach of trust with the plaintiff and fraud has

been committed to grab the property of the

plaintiff whereas the property in question, in view

of the opinion of the defendant No 3 i.e. Punjab

National Bank's approved Advocate, could never

be mortgaged unless and until the permission to

mortgage was obtained from HUDA and

Memorandum of deposit of title deed was got

signed which was never got signed by the plaintiff.

The bank official had a connivance with the

defendant No.1 i.e. proprietor of M/s Sapphire

Digital Printers and as such they did not follow

the instructions of Bank's approved lawyer and

sanctioned the loan in the