The Delhi High Court rules that borrowers should not invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India and instead follow the procedure in case of SARFAESI proceedings.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

BEFORE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

Between: -

DIAMOND ENTERTAINMENT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.

THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR

R/O B-47, GREATER KAILASH,

PART- I, NEW DELHI-110048                                                                                                                    .....PETITIONER NO.1

SPG PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.

THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR

R/O B-47, GREATER KAILASH,

G/F & B/F, NEW DELHI-110048                                                                                                                .....PETITIONER NO.2

L B ELECTRONICS LIMITED

THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR

R/O B-47, GREATER KAILASH

PART-I, NEW DELHI-110048                                                                                                                   .....PETITIONER NO.3

KAWALJIT KAUR OBEROI

D/O DHARSHAN SINGH BHASIN

R/O B-47, GREATER KAILASH

PART-I, NEW DELH-110048                                                                                                                     .....PETITIONER NO.4

INDERJIT SINGH OBEROI

S/O S. RAJA SINGH

R/O B-47, GREATER KAILASH

PART-I, NEW DELHI–110048                                                                                                                    .....PETITIONER NO.5

OBEROI CARS PVT. LTD.

THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR

R/O C-12, SECTOR-1, NOIDA,

U.P. 201301                                                                                                                                                .....PETITIONER NO.6

(Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar and Mr. Nitesh Tiwari, Advocates)

VERSUS

RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED

THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER

MR. LOKESH KUMAR MITTAL

MR. LOKESH KUMAR MITTAL

FIRST FLOOR, CONNAUGHT PLACE,

NEW DELHI-110001

CORPORATE OFFICE AT:

SALCON RASVILAS,

5TH FLOOR, DISTRICT CENTRE,

SAKET, NEW DELHI-110017                                                                                                                ……….RESPONDENT

(Through: Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Ms. Ridhi Pahuja and Ms. Taniya Bansal, Advocates)

J U D G M E N T

1. The petitioners in the instant writ petition seek to challenge the order dated 02.12.2022 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), South East District, Saket District Court in MCA No.521/2021 under Section 14 of the Securitisation Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter as ‘SARFAESI Act’).

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the impugned order is an abuse of the process of law, at the instance of respondent which is a Non-Banking Financial Corporation (hereinafter as ‘NBFC’) engaged in providing financial assistance to the public at large. According to him, there was already a stay operating with respect to the mortgaged property i.e., B-47, Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi-110048 in Civil Suit (OS) 280/2021. He also submits that the said stay was continued from time to time and was very much in existence on the date of passing of the order on 02.12.2022. He further submits that the impugned order is passed on an application for extension of the earlier order dated 06.12.2021, which is in direct contravention of the mandate of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in all fairness, the respondent, while filing an application before the concerned CMM, ought to have disclosed the correct facts as were obtained on the date of filing of the application alongwith the requisite affidavit as required under first proviso of sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. He also submits that the timeline prescribed under second and third proviso of Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act is also breached in the instant case.

Read More