9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 2113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition stating that he has purchased two residential plots bearing No.215 and 216 situated at Shri Nagar Colony, Indore vide registered sale deed from Shri Anil Sharma and Shri Bala Sharma, who are the legal heirs and successor of the original owner of the plots, namely late Shri Ramswaroop Sharma and Late Smt. Manakbai Sharma. The sale deed was executed on 04.02.2016. The petitioner has further stated that he applied for mutation of his name in municipal record and it was mutated vide order dated 17.02.2016. Thereafter, an application was submitted for grant of buildi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 dated 04.02.2016. There are allegations and counter allegations in the matter. The petitioner himself has stated in the writ petition that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor for not having accepted his representation or objection or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons to the borrower shall not entitle the person (including borrower) to make an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under sub-section (1) of section 17.] 3[Explanation.-For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the communication of the reasons to the borrower by the secured creditor for not having accepted his representation or objection or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons to the borrower shall not entitle the person (including borrower) to make an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under sub-section (1) of section 17.]"4 [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n force, the secured creditor shall be entitled to take recourse to one or more of the measures specified under sub-section (4) of section l3 to recover his secured debt. (5) Any application made under sub-section (1) shall be dealt with by the Debts Recovery Tribunal as expeditiously as possible and disposed of within sixty days from the date of such application: Provided that the Debts Recovery Tribunal may, from time to time, extend the said period for reasons to be recorded in writing, so, however, that the total period of pendency of the application with the Debts Recovery Tribunal, shall not exceed four months from the date of making of such application made under sub-section (1). (6) If the application is not disposed of by the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roperty 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 34 and in light of the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner is certainly having a remedy of appeal by approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 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 ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
