Misc. Appeal No. 380 of 2013. Case: S.G.S. Construction and Developers (P) Ltd. Vs Housing and Urban Development Corpn. Ltd. and Ors.. Delhi DRAT DRAT (Delhi Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)
| Case Number | Misc. Appeal No. 380 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Pallav Saxena, Advocate and For Respondents/Defendant: Arush Pathania representing and A.K. Singh, Advocates |
| Judges | Ranjit Singh, J. (Chairperson) |
| Issue | Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sections 13(2), 13(4) |
| Citation | IV (2015) BC 113 (DRAT) |
| Judgement Date | July 20, 2015 |
| Court | Delhi DRAT DRAT (Delhi Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals) |
Judgment:
Ranjit Singh, J. (Chairperson)
-
Prayer made by appellant M/s. S.G.S. Construction and Developers (P) Ltd. for being impleaded as party respondent in S.A. filed by Maharaji Educational Trust and another has been rejected by the Tribunal below. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant has filed the present appeal to impugn that part of the order whereby the I.A. filed by the appellant under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC read with relevant provisions of the Securitization Act is dismissed. A brief mention to the fact would be sufficient to get the hang of the issue in the present appeal.
-
M/s. Maharaji Educational Trust (for short MET) had filed one S.A. against HUDCO and its authorized officer to challenge the notice dated 19.9.2011 issued by respondent HUDCO under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. MET had also sought interim relief for stay of notice. When the case was listed on 30.11.2011 for hearing of the interim relief, one I.A. came to be filed by the appellant construction company being a third party for its impleadment. This application was filed along with the order passed by the Lucknow Bench of the High Court.
-
The prayer of the appellant was that before passing any order in the S.A., the I.A. filed by the appellant be taken up for hearing in view of the interim order passed by the said Bench of the High Court wherein proceedings qua the mortgaged property mentioned at Sl No. 6 was directed to remain in abeyance.
-
It may call for a notice here that in the course of hearing on 30.11.2011, the Counsel for MET as well as HUDCO had agreed that the authorized officer of HUDCO could take symbolic possession of the property and HUDCO was even requested to sell this property at the first instance which was being valued more than the dues of HUDCO. In view of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, the Tribunal could not pass any order on the interim relief prayed by MET. It was also disclosed before the Tribunal below that MET had filed one SLP against the order passed by the High Court and the Apex Court had stayed the operation of the order passed by the High Court. The appellant construction company had thus filed an application for being impleaded in the S.A., which was then taken up for consideration by the Tribunal below.
-
The prayer by the appellant in this application was that it was a necessary and proper party as it is aggrieved against the action and measure taken by HUDCO, as the company had entered into an...
To continue reading
Request your trial