M/S Hukam Chand Tarsem Lal v. Additional District Magistrate


 



  


 



 

   


!"

#$

"%&'&#()

* * +'

,- .

/ (0 (0 1#('

****"!&!&#("2 3"2','

00&!&#( 4

&'!2&%!

 5&'!2 !"6 7,0/& ( (0 #!/"2'

**** "'8#(0"(!'



*


!"

#$

"%&'&#()

* * +'

,- .

/ (0  2'".

7 4 (0 #!/"2'

****"!&!&#("2'

3"2','

00&!&#( 4

&'!2&%!

 5&'!2 !"6 7,0/& ( (0 #!/"2'

***"'8#(0"(!'

  )

9 7 1* 1
 71

77

9 7 1* 1


 



:::





     

      

  

!

"#$ %

&     '% 

%  ((( 71

776 *

 7
 &)*+,-./+0++ &)*++.--'+0++   #   $#   1# 2 

#    +  3   %

 

  3#    

0
+0+0

4#', 0506+0+0

4#'.

 #%7'% # 
- +  
- ,   7#   # 8 



93# 7: +00+ ; 9:

<  
=06+0++

4#'6  %7!

 

   >#

# 
, 9:  #%1#  
605+0++ #%7*+##  + Question sought to be raised in this writ petition is that a valid mortgage in respect to secured asset/property in question has not been created in favour of respondent-Bank inasmuch as it was not compulsorily registered in terms of Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908. Therefore, in this view of the matter, proceedings under the SARFAESI Act initiated against petitioner are not maintainable.

- >   #         

7  #%3       7    

       2        1#  7    

   3   ++
++0+- &)*++-.5+0+

?"!8 > @ :

 &) */+.-+0++

?"!8 >   33# 3    wherein it has been held as under:- "

xx xx xx xx xx We also do not find any merit in the argument raised by learned counsel for petitioner-Company that it is a pure question of law and a jurisdictional issue which arises for consideration in this writ petition. As to whether equitable mortgage was indeed created or not as has been sought to be agitated by petitioners at this later stage after initiation of proceedings under SARFAESI Act and staunchly refuted by respondents, cannot be termed to be a pure question of law. It is a mixed question of fact and law which will have to be looked into and adjudicated upon by the Appropriate Forum/Tribunal." ,

  7    3 2 

%7  

37



% 3   2 

2

: 

   4  3   .   3 

#  

     7  

   

71

77

 

 



 

* * # ?;3< ) ?   B?* ) %  B?*