- (1.) The appellant is an assignee of the Bank of India and an asset reconstruction company which had initiated measures under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Securitisation Act") and had also obtained an order of possession of the mortgaged properties (two items) under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act.
(2.) The borrower(s) moved the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi ("DRT" for short) under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act which proceeding has been registered and numbered as S.A. No.122 of 2015. In the said proceedings, an interim order has been passed by the DRT on 10th April, 2015 to the following effect: "8. Heard both the parties and perused the records and I am of this view that right to property is a constitutional right and as per judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of " Ram Kishun v. State of UP" only that much portion of the property be sold which would suffice to recover the dues of the bank. In the present matter the valuation of the first property situated at Jallunder, Ludhiana is worth more than Rs. 8 crores. This Tribunal is of the view that let respondent FI sell the property situated at Jallunder, Ludhiana after taking possession of the same. However, the respondent FI/Receiver is hereby restrained from taking the physical possession of the property situated at Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi."
(3.) Aggrieved the appellant had moved the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi ("DRAT" for short) and being unsuccessful in the said forum had moved the High Court. The High Court by the impugned order refused to interfere with the orders passed by the DRT and DRAT giving rise to the present appeal.;