Sonali Kapoor v. Punjab And Sind Bank

$~4.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6716/2018 SONALI KAPOOR ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Ajay Khanna, Advocate.

versus PUNJAB AND SIND BANK ..... Respondent Through Mr. Ajay Dabas & Ms. Priyanka Dagar, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

O R D E R

% 20.07.2018 On 27th June, 2018, the writ petitioner had given a statement that the total outstanding amount was approximately Rs.32 lacs and the entire outstanding amount would be deposited with the respondent bank within three weeks. Undertaking in form of an affidavit was to be filed within two days with the Registrar General of this Court. On the said undertaking being filed, the respondent bank was not to take coercive steps. 2.

The petitioner has not made payment of Rs.32 lacs. The petitioner has also not filed the undertaking with the Registrar General. As per the office report, even process fee was not filed. 3.

When the writ petition is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent bank took possession of the property on 27th June, 2018.

4.

Counsel for the respondent bank, who is present, states that the order dated 27th June, 2018 was not communicated and informed to the respondent bank. It is stated that the petitioner had orally informed the bank that she has a buyer, who is ready and willing to purchase the property for Rs.28,50,000/- and the matter may be settled. The order dated 27th June, 2018 stating that the petitioner was ready and willing to deposit entire outstanding amount of Rs.32 lacs was concealed. 5.

We may note that the petitioner has thereafter not filed any application in the present writ petition pointing out subsequent developments or to explain why they had not filed the undertaking. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner requires more time to arrange for money.

6.

Given the aforesaid factual position, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal where the securitisation application of the petitioner is pending. No further order or direction is required. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.

JULY 20, 2018 VKR