ROHTASH KUMAR MURADIA vs UNION BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1512/2024 & CM APPL. 6239/2024
ROHTASH KUMAR MURADIA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Rupesh Kumar Sinha and Mr. Prabhat Kaushik, Advocates
versus
UNION BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. ….. Respondents
Through: Appearance not given
% Date of Decision: 02nd February, 2024
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed seeking direction to the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III (Tribunal or DRT-III) to ensure that the application being M.A. No. 161/2019 titled as Rohtash Kumar Muradia v. Corporation Bank & Ors. (restoration application) filed by the Petitioner herein, be heard and disposed of in time bound manner.
1.1. It is stated that the Petitioner herein filed an application being S.A. No. 69/2016 titled as Rohtash Kumar Muradia v. Corporation Bank & Ors., before the Tribunal, seeking setting aside/quashing of the actions of Respondent no. 1 herein, as regards taking symbolic possession of the property bearing Plot No. 19, Block F-3, Model Town, Delhi-110009 (subject property) under Sections 13 and 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). It is stated that the said application was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 16th May,.2019 on the ground of non-prosecution.
1.2. It is stated that, thereafter, on 30th July, 2019, the Petitioner herein filed the aforesaid restoration application seeking restitution of S.A. No. 69/2016.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the restoration application was first listed on 20th August, 2019 and has remained pending for more than 4 ½ years. He states that the application has not been decided for one reason or the other. He states that though notice has been issued in the application to all the parties, there is wilful non-representation. He states that the Petitioner apprehends that the connected matters pertaining to the same subject property will be decided without hearing S.A. No. 69/2016 on merits.
3. He states that the Petitioner has invested a large sum of money in dismantling the old building and raising a new structure till the fourth floor. He states that the unfinished building is being wasted away and depreciating in its value due to the non-adjudication of the Petitioners application. He states that the Petitioner as well has a lien on the subject property. He states that the completion of the building was stopped due to the restraining order issued by the Tribunal. He states that there are two (2) banks claiming mortgage rights over the subject property. He states that the Petitioner is ready and willing to buy the subject property at the market price; however, the Petitioners request has not been acceded to before the Tribunal.
4. He states that the pendency of the restoration application for 4 ½ years has resulted in denial of access to due process of law and therefore, the Petitioner has been left with no alternative but to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the Respondents, who appears on advance service, states that they have no objection to the prayer in the writ petition for expeditious disposal of the restoration application being allowed.
6. It is apparent from the record that the Petitioners application S.A. No. 69/2016 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 16th May, 2019 and the restoration application i.e., M.A. No. 161/2019 was filed on 30th July, 2019.
7. In the facts of this case, considering that the restoration application i.e., M A. No. 161/2019 has been pending for 4½ years, we direct DRT-III to hear and decide the said application expeditiously and preferably not later than three (3) months from today. The registry of DRT is directed to list the said application on Board of DRT-III on or before 17th February, 2024.
8. Further, this Court has been informed that the connected matters pertaining to the subject property are listed before DRT-III on 28th March, 2024. Subject to orders passed in M.A. No. 161/2019, DRT-III is directed to hear and decide S.A. No. 69/2016 along with the connected matters to avoid conflict of orders.
9. The Petitioner will be at liberty to move an appropriate application before the Tribunal for seeking leave to purchase the subject property at market price. The application when filed will be decided by the Tribunal in accordance with law. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the said plea of the Petitioner.
10. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is allowed and the application stand disposed of.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
FEBRUARY 2, 2024/
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
W.P.(C) 1512/2024 Page 2 of 4