Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26032 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sujit Kumar Singh Respondent :- Uco Bank And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kartikeya Saran,Varun Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh,Yashwant Singh
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Yashwant Singh, learned counsel for respodnents No. 1 and 2 and Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.6.
The petitioner is claiming that he is owner in possession of the flat No. T4-103, first floor, Tower No.4 ("The Aranya"), GH-2, Sector-119, NOIDA. The said flat was allotted to the petitioner by the respondents No. 2 and 3 and that the petitioner had paid almost all the installments towards the sale consideration of the said flat. The respondent No.1 has initiated proceedings under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act in the name of respondents No.4 and 5 as they defaulted in the payment of loan obtained by them by submitting an agreement for the purchase of the said flat from respondents No. 2 and 3.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice of possession of the aforesaid flat as according to him his rights would be adversely affected if he is dispossessed and the possession of the flat is taken from him.
In short, the issue which ultimately arises for consideration is whether the petitioner has a better entitle over the flat in question qua the respondents No.4 and 5 who have taken loan against the same.
This issue is beyond adjudication in summary proceedings and is a matter to be decided and considered on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties.
Since the aforesaid property is a secured assets, the bank is entitled to proceed against it in accordance with SARFAESI Act.
The petitioner, if aggrieved, can take recourse to Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act against the notice issued under Section 13 (4) of the Act irrespective of the fact that the said notice is not in his name.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not feel inclined to entertain this petition and leave it open to the petitioner to draw proceedings as may be advised including that under Section 17 of the Act before the D.R.T.
The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 Nirmal Sinha