M/S. Estera Real Estate Private Limited v. Mrs. Geeta Datt And ANR.

$-8 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 11166/2017 M/S. ESTERA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED Petitioner Through Mr. Vineet Malhotra, Mr. Prashant Kumar and Mr. Shubhendu Kaushik, Advocates.

versus MRS. GEETA DATT AND ANR.

Respondents Through Mr. H.L. Tiku, Senior Advocate along with Mr. S.K. Nanda, Advocate for respondent No. 1.

Mr. Amit Sethi and Mr. Ishan Khanna, Advocates for respondent No. 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

ORDER

% 14.03.2018 The present petition assails an order dated 22"*^ November, 2017, rendered by the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (DRAT) in Appeal No. 474/2016 titled as ''Geeta Dutt vs. Canara Bank & Anr. " (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject appeal') whereby in terms of a prima facie view arrived at by the Tribunal, the auction purchaser who is the petitioner herein, was directed to deposit with the Registrar the unearned increase amount of Rs. 12.65 crores, with a further direction that in case the deposit was not made within a week, the auction purchaser would become liable to surrender the property in his occupation. W. p. (C) 11166/2017 page I of 2 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.

The petitioner is aggrieved not only by the said direction but also by the prima facie view taken by the DRAT to the effect that the sale was conducted by illegal and arbitrary exercise of the power by the Recovery Officer in collusion with the auction purchaser. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the direction to deposit the unearned increase amount at the preliminary stage of the hearing of the appeal cannot be sustained. The direction to so deposit the unearned increase is, therefore, set aside at this stage. Insofar as, the prima facie view arrived at by the Tribunal is concerned, needless to state that the same is only a prima facie view and that the Tribunal would hear the petitioner in this behalf on the merits of the subject appeal before finally adjudicating upon it. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J deepaIsharma, j MARCH 14, 2018 rs IV. p. (C) 11166/2017