Govind Kumar And ANR. v. State Of Haryana And ORS





    
   

   

         

      !"  

#$       !

" #
#! $
  #
   !

" #
#
%



 %&#'

($)   $  & %&*+$)

(&)  (!"& %&)  %&),"  %& ""- )   $$(

.$  * &/& #! $
  #
 !

 0%1
21  3$$(

 

(   $(

-$$(

 $  * &/ - " $ $$"&  3 4   $$(

    

+

 (( 4  $$(

  $(  $   * &/&  )    $  ,   & 1
2261
7
& '  48$  * &
9  4 8$  * &9

(    $    ((" , - : -  4  $    



  
7&&
;   /&
&
; 8)< 16   1

 $  ("9& & Petitioner No.2 had approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), which is evident RATTAN PAL SINGH 2025.12.09 09.16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

 

  from impugned orders dated 24.07.2017 and 20&2&
/(Annexures P-14 and P-15).  6& The SA filed by petitioner No.2 was dismissed on 22.02.2017 vide order (Annexure P-16) in view of the fact that she is not the borrower. When the said order was assailed by petitioner No.2 before the DRAT in Appeal No.413/2017, the same was dismissed for want of making predeposit vide order (Annexure P-15).  & Learned counsel for petitioners essentially raises the ground that fraud has been committed on the petitioner/borrower and his wife.  & Pertinently, the Apex Court, in case of 'Mardia Chemicals Ltd. vs.

Union of India & others' AIR Online 2004 SC 948, has held that the bar contained in Section 34 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Act shall not apply in cases where the aggrieved person approaches the Civil Court on the ground of fraud.  ;& The petitioner has failed to avail the said remedy.

$   &   #!

 
  #
   #
%

    &'&()&*+$,
 5$, -.    =.*  5$ (   =.*  RATTAN PAL SINGH 2025.12.09 09.16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document