Misc. Appeal No. 276 of 2016. Case: PNB Housing Finance Ltd. Vs Union Bank of India and Ors.. Delhi DRAT DRAT (Delhi Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)

Case NumberMisc. Appeal No. 276 of 2016
CounselFor Appellant: Sanjeev Singh, Advocate and For Respondents: Hari Kishan, H.S. Kholi and Dipanjan Biswas, Advocates
JudgesP.K. Bhasin, J. (Chairperson)
IssueRecovery Of Debts And Bankruptcy Insolvency Resolution And Bankruptcy Of Individuals And Partnership Firms Act, 1993 - Sections 19, 20, 30; Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 17
Judgement DateSeptember 20, 2016
CourtDelhi DRAT DRAT (Delhi Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)


P.K. Bhasin, J. (Chairperson)

  1. The appellant as a Home Finance Company and subsidiary of Punjab National Bank had given loan of Rs. 13,00,000 to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on 12.5.2007 and to secure its re-payment they had created equitable mortgage of one property which was registered in the name of respondent No. 3. Since these borrowers failed to re-pay the loan in time their account was declared as a Non Performing Asset (NPA) by the appellant and thereafter it initiated proceedings against them under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act' in short) and the mortgaged property came to be sold in auction for a sum of Rs. 25,41,000/- on 29.5.2012 and sale certificate was issued in favour of the auction purchaser on 18.6.2012. The respondent No. 1 Bank had also given a loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- to respondents 2 and 3 in March, 2008 and to secure that loan respondent No. 3 had created equitable mortgage of the same property, which she had done earlier in favour of appellant Bank in separate loan transaction, in favour of respondent No. 1 Bank. It appears that since these respondents failed to repay that loan also the said Bank also initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act and it also filed a petition under Section 17 of the said Act not only against the two borrowers but the appellant Bank was also impleaded in that petition as a defendant (being SA No. 563/2011) before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-Ill, Delhi apprehending that appellant Bank may not sell the mortgaged property. In that SA respondent No. 1 Bank had sought the relief of stay against appellant Bank also against sale of mortgaged property. Though an ex parte order of status quo was passed in that case on 21.11.2011, but before the appellant herein could be served with that order the SA came to be dismissed in default on 5.12.2011. It was restored on 15.12.2011 but appellant was served in that case only for 21.9.2012. However, before that the property in question was auctioned by appellant herein. The said SA of respondent No. 1 Bank is still stated to be pending before the DRT. It appears that respondent No. 1 Bank had also filed recovery case against the borrowers/guarantors/mortgagor under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, (RDDBFI Act of 1993) before the DRT concerned (being O.A. No. 87/2011) but there the appellant Bank...

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