VEENA JAIN Vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeking setting aside of an order dtd. 2/9/2024 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in SA/326/2024 as well as an order dtd. 3/9/2024 passed by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal in Misc. Appeal No. 277/2024; the order dtd. 5/8/2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Ct. Case No. 9335/2024 and any action taken pursuant thereto. Petitioner further seeks setting aside of Auction Notice dtd. 5/7/2024; the Demand Notice dtd. 30/1/2024 and quashing of the entire SARFAESI proceedings initiated by respondent no.1-Bank as well as a direction to respondent no.1 to consider the Proposal dtd. 30/8/2024 given by the petitioner.

(2.) The facts shorn of unnecessary details and as culled out from the petition are as under:-

(3.) Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, canvassed before this Court that the respondent bank has committed a gross illegality by clubbing/amalgamating the loan availed of by the petitioner with that of the proprietorship firm of her son i.e., respondent no.2-M/s. Shree Vimal Sagar Jewellers, which is contrary to the banking regulations. According to learned Senior Counsel, both the loans are separate and distinct, availed of by two individuals who have nothing in common, save their familial relationship. He submits that merely because the petitioner and respondent no.3 are related would not mean that the loans or the debt are interchangeable. He urged that not only the respondent bank committed this illegality but even the learned DRAT committed an error by not drawing the distinction between the two sets of loans and directing the petitioner to deposit the mandatory pre-deposit of at least 25% of the combined alleged loans due, of the petitioner as well as the firm of respondent no.3. He canvassed that the petitioner asserted before the learned DRAT that if given some time, the petitioner would make good the pre-deposit, but on the Home Loan amount alleged to be due and payable by her, which is claimed to be only a sum of Rs.1,50,78,805.00. However, the Appellate Tribunal did not consider this submission causing injustice.