KAILASH MEHENDIRATTA Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the Judgement and Order dtd. 21/8/2023 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi ('DRAT') in Appeal No. 104 of 2022 ('Impugned Judgement') and final order dtd. 14/6/2022 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, New Delhi ('DRT') in S.A. No. 207 of 2019 ('Impugned final order').

(2.) The learned senior counsel for Petitioner contends that petitioner entered into an unregistered Agreement to Sell dtd. 9/5/2017 ('first ATS') with Respondent No. 2 (since deceased) in relation to the property situated at B-34, Sector - 63, Noida, Phase-III, Uttar Pradesh ('subject property') for a total consideration of Rs.4,31,00,000.00. It is stated that an amount of Rs.2,19,40,000.00 was paid in staggered tranches between 5/5/2017 to 21/8/2018. It is stated that subsequently on 9/8/2017 physical possession of the subject property was handed over to the Petitioner and this was recorded in an Agreement dtd. 26/9/2017 ('second ATS' or 'novated ATS') with revised timelines for completion of formalities. It is stated that the Petitioner learnt about the mortgage on 21/7/2019, when an e-auction notice was issued by Respondent No. 1. It is stated that it is thereafter, the Petitioner approached the DRT in S.A. No. 207/2019 seeking quashing of the e-auction and sale notices and prevention action under Sec. 17 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner states that in pursuance to the 1st ATS, the Petitioner paid an amount of Rs.2,19,40,000.00 to Respondent No. 2 (now deceased) and relies upon the details of payment set out in the table filed as Annexure-4. He states that the Petitioner was put in physical possession of the subject property by Respondent No. 2 and he has been dispossessed in August-September, 2023 by Respondent Nos. 1 and 5. He states that though the Petitioner does not have any registered title deed in his favour, he was put in physical possession by the Respondent No. 2.