9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 2113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by respondent No.1 on 10.11.2017. In the present case, the respondent No.2 is proceeding ahead against the owner of the property i.e. respondent No.3 on account of the fact that the property was mortgaged with the respondent No.2. The sale deed on the basis of which, respondent No.3 is driving title is of the year 1995. This Court cannot comment upon the sale deed of the year 1995 nor the sale deed dated 04.02.2016, as claims and counter claims have been raised by the petitioner as well as by respondents No.3 and 4. The petitioner himself has stated in the writ petition that while he was obtaining loan for raising construction on the plot, he came to know that respondent No.3 has obtained loan from respondent No.2 by mortgaging the plots on the strength of two registered sale deed executed in the year 1995. Nothing prevented the petitioner to file a civil suit immediately in the matter. The petitioner kept quiet and it only after the respondent No.2 has initiated action against respondent No.3 and after an order has been passed on 10.11.2017, the present petition has been filed. At present, there is an order against the petitioner dated 10.11.2017, which is certainly an appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after, impugned order has been passed on 10.11.2017. The petitioner's grievance is that he is the owner of the property in question, and therefore, the impugned order dated 10.11.2017 deserves to be quashed. Reply has been filed by respondent No.3 and it has been stated that the petitioner is not the titleholder of the property. It was purchased by respondent No.3 in the year 1995 and by projecting a false and concocted story, he is claiming title over the property in question by stating that he has purchased the plot by registered sale deed dated 04.02.2016. A reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 / M/s Bajaj Finance Limited also and it has been stated that on the basis of mortgage created by the titleholder of the property, they are rightly proceeding ahead in the matter, and therefore, question of interference by this Court doesn't arise and the only remedy available is to approach Debt Recovery Tribunal. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. In the present case, respondent No.3 is driving the title of the property in question on the basis of sale deed dated 05.06.1995 and the petitioner is claiming title on the basis of sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overy Tribunal shall consider whether any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor for enforcement of security are in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. (3) If, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, after examining the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence produced by the parties, comes to the conclusion that any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13, taken by the secured creditor are not in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, and require restoration of the management of the secured assets to the borrower or restoration of possession of the secured assets to the borrower, it may by order, declare the recourse to any one or more measures referred to in-sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured assets as invalid and restore the possession of the secured assets to the borrower or restore the management of the secured assets to the borrower, as the case may be, and pass such order as it may consider appropriate and necessary in relation to any of the recourse taken by the secured creditor under sub-section (4) of section 13. (4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt No.2 is proceeding ahead against the owner of the property i.e. respondent No.3 on account of the fact that the property was mortgaged with the respondent No.2. The sale deed on the basis of which, respondent No.3 is driving title is of the year 1995. This Court cannot comment upon the sale deed of the year 1995 nor the sale deed dated 04.02.2016, as claims and counter claims have been raised by the petitioner as well as by respondents No.3 and 4. The apex Court in the case of State Bank of India v/s Allwyn Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Others reported in II (2018) BC 547 (SC), in paragraph 6 has held as under:- 6. After having considered the rival submissions of the parities, we have no hesitation in acceding to the argument urged on behalf of the Bank that the mandate of Section 13 and, in particular, Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the 2002 Act ), clearly bars filing of a civil suit. For, no civil court can exercise jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a DRT or DRAT is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction can be granted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
