LAWS(DLH)-2015-8-516

INDERPREET KAUR Vs. HDFC BANK AND ANR

Decided On August 13, 2015
INDERPREET KAUR Appellant
V/S
Hdfc Bank And Anr Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present writ petition has been filed by petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking an appropriate writ thereby declaring

(2.) In this case, the appeal filed against the Order dated 14.5.2015 passed by the DRT was dismissed by the DRAT on 26.5.2015.

(3.) The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, who is stated to be residing at San Francisco, are that a Gift Deed was executed by her brother-in-law (respondent no.2 herein) with respect to the aforestated property bearing no.D-146, First Floor, Sector 8, Dwarka, New Delhi, in her favour on 3.7.2010, which was duly registered as document no.8635 in Book No.1, Volume No.5430 on pages 134 to 138 on 3.7.2010. At the time of execution of the Gift Deed, the said property was mortgaged with the Citi Bank. It was agreed that respondent no.2 would continue to pay the installments and Citi Bank would hand over No Objection Certificate and title documents once the loan is cleared. The loan was cleared by respondent no.2. The Citi Bank issued No Objection certificate in the month of February, 2013. Thereafter respondent no.2 created a mortgage of the property in favour of respondent no.1 Bank on 9.3.2013 that is after a gap of three years from the date the gift deed was executed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner learnt about the same on 27.3.2015, when she received a telephone call informing her that the officials of the HDFC Bank had broke open the locks of the house. On 7.4.2015, a sale notice was issued by the HDFC Bank with respect to the property in question. The petitioner thereafter filed an SA before the DRT seeking stay of the action taken by the HDFC Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The DRT, vide Order dated 14.5.2015, refused to grant stay of the auction. Aggrieved by the said order dated 14.5.2015, the petitioner filed an appeal before the DRAT, which was dismissed vide Order dated 26.5.2015, which has forced the petitioner to approach this Court.