Rasid v. State Of Punjab And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.25311 of 2018 Decided on 01.10.2018 Rasid Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others Respondents * * * CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present :
Mr. Sandeep Singh Majithia, Advocate for the petitioner.
* * * AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of order dated 21.09.2018 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Additional District Magistrate, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity 'the Act') 2.
State of Punjab; Department of Revenue, Govt. of Punjab; Additional District Magistrate, SAS Nagar, Mohali; Arms, a Division of Arcil [Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited], Mumbai; Balwinder Singh s/o Bachan Singh r/o Village Dhanori, Tehsil Morinda, District Ropar and Surjit Kakkar w/o Late Manohar Lal Kakkar r/o Mohali have been arrayed as respondents No.1 to 6, respectively, in the writ petition.
3.
The petitioner purchased a House bearing No.30, measuring 208 sq. yards i.e. 4 Biswa 03 Biswasi being 83/9480 share of land measuring 23 Bigha 14 Biswa comprising in Khata No. 290/429 Khasra No. 206(4-0), 207(4-0), 208(4-0), 209(4-0), 210(4-0), 211(3-14) situated in Village Baltana, District SAS Nagar, Mohali vide sale deed dated 19.02.2016 from respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 i.e. vendor of the petitioner had purchased house in question from respondent No.6 vide sale deed dated 20.03.2008. Respondent No.6 had purchased the said house from Sh. Chaman Lal Ahuja and for purchasing the property, she availed loan from GE Money to the tune of 15 lakhs. In order to secure the loan, the property in question was mortgaged.
4.
There was default in repayment of loan by respondent No.6 and the matter was referred to the Arbitrator. An award was passed on 04.08.2009 for recovery of 16,60,582/- alongwith interest @ 18% and 15,000/- as costs. Respondent No.6 failed to pay the outstanding dues and respondent No.4 initiated recovery proceedings under the Act. An application under Section 14 was filed by respondent No.4. Notice was issued by the respondent No.3. Thereafter, order dated 21.09.2018 was passed for taking over physical possession of the mortgaged property and handing over the same to respondent No.4. Aggrieved of the order, the present writ petition has been filed.
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the loan was taken by respondent No.6 whereas the petitioner had purchased the house from respondent No.6, as such no recovery proceedings
can be proceeded against the said property. He argued that respondent No.3 erred in passing order under Section 14 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6.
The grievance of the petitioner is against order passed under Section 14 of the Act. The petitioner has a statutory remedy available against the order passed under Section 14 of the Act. Moreover, there are disputed question of facts involved in the petition such as, the property in question having passed through the hands of various vendors, and, therefore, to decide the lis, evidence has to be adduced.
7.
The Supreme Court in the case of Kaniyalal Lalchand Sachdev & others Vs. State of Maharashtra 2011(2) SCC 782 relied upon its earlier decision in Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank & Anr. v. Ashok Saw Mill, (2009) 8 SCC 366 held that remedy under section 17 of the Act is available to an aggrieved party even against action under section 14 of the Act. It was observed as under:-
!""
#$$
!"
# $ %
&
!"
$' ( )
*
$+
#+ *+ , - .
%
&
%
% /
+
/ %
%
# 0
+ & % + && %0 0
%1 !"
/ %0 +
/
&
!. 0
& /
%1 " 2 & + +
% /
%
& 0
+ & %
0 &
0 & %0 &
0 &
0 &
0 %
4 % &
%
%
/ %0 &
!" $( +
/ %0
!"
0 0% % % %0 - 564
&
%
! $ / &
!"+ +
%
# " $ + $
0 % 0
%0
!" $+%0
&
% 8.
Further delving into the issue of alternative remedy, the Apex Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others (2010) 8 SCC 110, held as under:
*+ 7 & *
&
% 0 0
$
$8$9 $ ) $ 552
&
& % /
:
9.
There being disputed question of facts involved in this petition and keeping in view the availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedies in accordance with law. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE October 01, 2018 pankaj baweja Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes / No Whether reportable :
Yes / No