Misc. Appeal No. 293 of 2016. Case: ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs Mahal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.. Delhi DRAT DRAT (Delhi Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)

Case NumberMisc. Appeal No. 293 of 2016
CounselFor Appellant: Puneet Bhalla, Advocate and For Respondents: Vineet Malhotra and Vishal Gohri, Advocates
JudgesP.K. Bhasin, J. (Chairperson)
IssueSecuritisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sections 13, 14, 17
Judgement DateSeptember 14, 2016
CourtDelhi DRAT DRAT (Delhi Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)


P.K. Bhasin, J. (Chairperson)

  1. The appellant Bank (ICICI Bank) is aggrieved by the order dated 17th August, 2016 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi ('DRT in short) in the Securitisation Application (S.A.) filed under Section 17 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act' in short) titled as "M/s. Mahal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd." whereby the appellant Bank was directed to deseal the Lower Ground Floor/Basement of property No. A-154, Sector-8, Dwarka, New Delhi (hereinafter to be referred as the 'the property in dispute') which it claimed to have been mortgaged in its favour by one borrower to secure the repayment of the loan granted by it and which property was sealed on 12th August, 2016 by the Court Receiver after the Bank had initiated action under Sections 13 and 14 of the SARFAESI Act against the borrower and guarantors and mortgagor of the property in dispute. The relevant facts are that the respondent Company claiming itself to be the owner of the property in dispute having purchased the same in September, 2012 from its erstwhile owner, who now is alleged by the appellant Bank to be the defaulter-borrower, filed a petition under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act on 11.08.2016 in the DRT-I against the appellant herein challenging its action initiated under the SARFAESI Act for taking over physical possession of the property in dispute. In the S.A. the respondent Company had claimed interim relief also against the taking over of physical possession of the property in dispute.

  2. Notice of the S.A. and stay application was given by the DRT to the Bank for next day i.e. 12th August, 2016 and on that day the learned presiding officer of DRT after hearing both the sides passed the following order:-


    Present: Mr. Vineet Malhotra alongwith Mr. Vishal Gohri, Counsel for applicant

    Mr. Puneet K. Bhalla, Counsel for respondent Bank.

    Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the Director of M/s. Mahal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. and is bona fide purchaser of lower ground floor/basement of the property bearing No. 154, Block-A, Sector-8, Dwarka, New Delhi having purchased the same by way of registered sale deed dated 24.09.2012. He further submits that the applicant is the absolute owner of the said property and has rented out the same to one M/s. Meander Software Pvt. Ltd. and is the only source of income for his livelihood.

    He further submits that the respondent Bank has already taken the possession of ground floor of the property in question for the last three months and no further steps have been taken by the Bank. He further submits that the dues of the Bank are approximately Rs. 90. lacs and he is ready to buy the ground floor for Rs. 90 lacs. He further submits that he is ready to deposit 5% of the said amount within three days and the balance amount will be deposited as per directions of this Tribunal.

    Learned Counsel for the respondent Bank vehemently opposes the above submissions of the Learned Counsel for the applicant and submits that the entire property is mortgaged with the Bank and the sale deed in favour of the applicant is subsequent to mortgage. He further relied upon the order dated 25.7.2018 passed by this Tribunal in the S.A. No. 151/2016 filed by the applicant. He further contends that merely by changing the name of the applicant will not change the facts of the case.

    Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that applicant is ready to pay entire dues of the Bank, therefore, the applicant herein is directed to deposit 5% of the amount of 90 lacs within three days with the Registrar of this Tribunal by way of an FDR. The respondent Bank is also directed to file its valuation report of the ground floor of the property in question within a week. Till then no coercive steps be taken against the property in question.

    List the case for compliance on 25.8.2016. Dasti.

  3. Immediately after this order was pronounced the respondent Company moved a contempt application (being I.A. No. 1092/2016) against the appellant Bank. It was alleged in that application that after hearing arguments on stay application on 12.8.2016 the matter was kept for...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT