ANITA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA
LAWS(DR)-2014-1-4
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on January 29,2014

ANITA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE BANK OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.N.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) BOTH these appeals have been directed against two separate orders dated 14.9.2010 passed by DRT -III, Delhi in S.A. Nos. 291 and 292/2010 (Smt. Anita & Another vs. State Bank of India) as well as in S.A. Nos. 293 and 294/2010 (Smt. Anita & Another vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur), whereby the S.As have been disposed of with the direction to the S.A. applicants to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lacs with State Bank of India (SBI), which shall be appropriated equally by both SBI and State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (SBBJ) towards the remaining recoverable amount.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to these appeals, in brief, are that one Praveen Kumar Jain had approached SBBJ for a housing loan of Rs. 10 lacs, which was sanctioned to him by the bank on 27.3.2003 and he had purchased the entire ground floor of property bearing No. 478, measuring 125 sq. yds., Sainik Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi, hereinafter referred to as the property in question, from R.K. Jain s/o B.R. Jain through a registered sale deed and deposited the original sale deed with the bank for creating equitable mortgage of that property in favour of the bank. As the borrower defaulted in repayment of the loan amount, the bank classified the account as Non Performing Asset (NPA) on 27.6.2006 and initiating actions under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the SARFAESI Act) issued demand notice dated 5.11.2009 under section 13(2) of the Act claiming an amount of Rs. 8,69,342.86. The bank, on failure of compliance of demand notice issued possession notice dated 6.3.2010 under section 13(4) of the Act and took the symbolic possession of the mortgaged property and also filed O.A. No. 56/2010 against the borrower/mortgagor for the recovery of Rs. 23,33,463.67 before DRT Ill, Delhi, which is pending. The said Praveen Kumar Jain also approached SBI for a personal loan of Rs. 10 lacs which was sanctioned to him by the bank on 25.7.2005 against the deposit of the original registered sale deed dated 29.5.2003 executed by R.K. Jain in his favour for creating the equitable mortgage as collateral security. When the borrower failed to maintain financial discipline and defaulted in making the repayment of the loan amount, the account was classified by SBI as NPA on 26.12.2007 and a demand notice dated 4.2.2009 under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued to the borrower/mortgagor, claiming an amount of Rs. 10,09,668.80, but the borrower failed to make any payment within the stipulated period of 60 days. The bank filed an application under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the CMM, Delhi for taking the possession of the secured asset and the learned ACMM, Delhi, vide order dated 7.6.2010, had ordered for the delivery of the possession of the property in question to the bank.
(3.) THE appellants Ms. Anita Jain and Ms. Parul Kapoor filed separate applications under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act against both SBBJ and SBI challenging its actions qua the property in question and claiming their title over the property in question with the averments that the entire property bearing No. 478, Sainik Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi was allotted by the DDA in favour of Ranjit Singh Gill, slo S. Sarmukh Singh, vide perpetual sub -lease dated 12.4.1990; that one R.K. Jain, s/o B.R. Jain, being attorney of said Ranjit Singh Gill, got that property converted into freehold from leasehold by virtue of a registered conveyance deed dated 22.11.2000; that said R.K. Jain had sold the entire ground floor of that property without roof right through a registered sale deed dated 29.5.2003 to Praveen Kumar Jain, who had sold that property to Smt. Sunita Sheryvani and Raju Sherwani by way of a registered sale deed dated 9.6.2005; that the said Smt. Sunita and Raju Sherwani had sold that property to the appellants for a sale consideration of Rs. 13 lacs, vide registered sale deed dated 23.5.2008, and put them in possession over the entire ground floor of the property and handed over all the original documents pertaining to the title of the property to them; that on 6.3.2010 the appellants found a possession notice issued by SBBJ and another notice issued by SBI affixed on the property in question and in those notices the said property was shown as mortgaged with the banks; that the appellants immediately approached the banks and intimating about their title over the property in question showed the original title deeds to the officers of the banks who were of the view that a fraud had been played by the borrower Praveen Kumar Jain with the banks; that the appellants, thereafter, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction [CS(OS) No. 569/2010] before the Delhi High Court against both the respondent banks and filed all the original documents of the property in question and the Hon'ble High Court, while making the order dated 7.4.2010, had observed that the plaintiffs were free to approach the PRT under section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act; that during the pendency of the suit before the High Court, the authorized officer of SBI had sent a notice dated 12.7.2010 for taking the possession of the property in question on 24.7.2010.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.