W.P.(C)--2067/2019. Case: MANOJ KUMAR PRUTHI Vs. M/S MAGMA HOUSING FINANCE. High Court of Delhi (India)

Case NumberW.P.(C)--2067/2019
CitationNA
Judgement DateOctober 11, 2019
CourtHigh Court of Delhi (India)

$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 2067/2019 & C.M. APPL. 9676/2019 (stay)

MANOJ KUMAR PRUTHI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Sanjay S. Chhabra, Advocate.

versus

M/S MAGMA HOUSING FINANCE ..... Respondent Through: Mr Samarendra Kumar, Advocate.

CORAM:

JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH

O R D E R % 11.10.2019

Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. :

  1. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is heard finally.

  2. The present petition is directed against an order dated 15th January, 2019, passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal („DRAT‟), rejecting Petitioner‟s application being I.A. No. 450/2018, seeking waiver of the deposit in terms of Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, („SARFAESI Act‟).

  3. The background facts are that the Respondent demanded from the present Petitioner a sum of Rs. 84, 17, 558/- by way of a demand notice

    under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act. The DRAT has rejected application on the ground that Section 18 (2) of the SARFAESI Act no distinction between an appeal filed against an interim order of the Recovery Tribunal („DRT‟) and a final order.

  4. The Petitioner initially was involved in a dispute with his father and a C.S. (OS) No. 863/2005 was filed in this Court by his father seeking Petitioner‟s eviction from the property at H-29, NDSE Part-I, New 110049 („the property in question‟). Ultimately, the said suit was for non-prosecution, after the demise of the Petitioner‟s father on December, 2007.

  5. The Petitioner on 5th June, 2014 received notice from one Mr. Kumar, who is stated to be the Sole Arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings commenced under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 („Act‟) Respondent. The Petitioner claims to have not been aware of any between him and the Respondent.

  6. The case of the Respondent, however, was that the Petitioner borrowed, as principal borrower, a sum of Rs. 60 lacs in 2005. Petitioner, however, denies having borrowed any such money.

  7. The Respondent filed O.M.P. No. 16/2015 in this Court under of the Act seeking injunction against the property in question, mortgaged with the Respondent. When this petition came up for before this Court on 26th May 2015, a preliminary objection was raised

    the present Petitioner that the signatures on the loan agreement produced by the Respondent were not that of the Petitioner. The Petitioner asked Court to direct the Respondent herein to...

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