SUNIL GUPTA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners have challenged the common order dtd. 16/9/2019 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi ('DRAT') in Appeal No.136/2017, Appeal No.133/2017, Appeal No.134/2017 and Appeal No.135/2017 filed by Respondent No.1/Punjab National Bank ('PNB') holding that PNB was a genuine mortgagee of the two properties in question and the same were not vitiated due to any kind of fraud having been played by PNB officials ('impugned order'). The DRAT further held that the bank had rightly exercised its rights as a secured creditor by selling the property No. 422-426, Katra Medgran, Khari Baoli, Delhi - 110006 ad measuring 200.66 square meters ('Khari Baoli Property') belonging to the Petitioners in W.P.(C) 11524/2019, W.P.(C) 11525/2019, W.P.(C) 11526/2019 and also has the right as a secured creditor in respect of property No. F-30A, Gali No.9, Subhash Chowk, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi- 110 092 ('Laxmi Nagar Property') belonging to the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 11527/2019 (Both Khari Baoli Property and Laxmi Nagar Property are hereinafter collectively referred to as 'the Properties').

(2.) By impugned order, the learned DRAT has set aside a common order dtd. 25/1/2017 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi ('DRT') in two original Applications being O.A No. 612 of 2015 in the matter of Punjab National Bank v. M/s Patwa Madan Lal Ashok Kumar and Others and O.A No. 613 of 2015 in the matter of Punjab National Bank v. M/s. Patwa Synthetic Yarns Pvt. Ltd. and Others ('OA') under Sec. 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and two Securitization Applications being S.A. No. 215/2015 in the matter of Shalini Gupta v. Punjab National Bank & Another and S.A. No. 335/2015 in the matter of Sunil Gupta and Another v. Punjab National Bank and Others ('SA') under Sec. 17(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act').

(3.) The Petitioners have contended that they came in contact with Respondent No. 2, who was said to be blessed with divine powers. Respondent No. 2 advised the Petitioners to sell off their scattered investments in real estate and consolidate all funds together and make a single large investment in the form of a large space commercial property.