RADHA GOYAL Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While issuing notice of the writ petition the following order had been passed: Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 13101/2005, W.P.(C) 13103/2005 and CM No. 9999/2005- It has been explained that Chander Shekhar Sharma who is the Guarantor had relinquished the rights in the property in favour of Krishan Kumar as far back as in 1979. The petitioners had purchased the property from the said Krishan Kumar in 1993 and in 1994 by duly registered Sale Deeds. The respondent Bank had extended loans to M/s. Indian Guru for which Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma had stood guarantee. The petitioners asserts that they have no connection whatsoever with M/s. Indian Guru and/or with Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma. Had a Title-search been conducted by the UCO Bank prior to extending the loan they would have come to know of the execution of a Sale Deed in respect of the property. In the absence of due diligence a third party ought not to suffer. Notice be issued to the respondents to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued, returnable on 11th January, 2005. Till the next date of hearing, the status quo in respect of the property in question be maintained.

(2.) In addition thereto learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioners are in possession of the property in question since the date of the purchase of the property by means of Registered Sale Deeds (Annexure J and K) to the present petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondent, however, relies on the enunciation of law in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, II (2004) SLT 991=II (2004) BC 397=110 (2004) DLT 665 (SC)=(2004) 4 SCC 311, where it had been observed that proceedings under Section 17 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Act, for brevity) are in the nature of ordinary civil proceedings, and not appellate proceedings. Similar views have been expressed in Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan, V (2001) SLT 778= AIR 2001 SC 3208. In Continental Construction Ltd. v. State Bank of India, 108 (2003) DLT 266=AIR 2004 Delhi 121, the Division Bench had observed that it would not be proper to entertain writ proceedings in the face of an alternative remedy under Section 17 of the Act. Single Benches have adopted this approach.