HEMI Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition for a writ of certiorari the petitioner has assailed the constitutional validity of Section 13 and 14 of the Securitisation and reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and sought quashing of an order dated 27th April, 2005 passed by ADJ-cum-CMM, Delhi in relation to plot No. J-116, Malviya Nagar Extension, Saket residential Scheme, New Delhi of which the petitioner claims to be the owner.

(2.) DURING the pendency of these proceedings the dues outstanding against r-5, the alleged borrower and alleged owner and mortgagor of the property mentioned above, have been cleared by the said respondents. Learned counsel appearing for R-4 bank today submits, on instructions, that the entire outstanding amount recoverable by the bank on account of loan transaction between R-4 and R-5 stands fully paid and nothing remains outstanding in the said account to call for any further proceedings by the bank under the Act mentioned above. He further states that the proceedings already instituted against property No. J-116, Malviya Nagar Extension, Saket Residential Scheme, new Delhi had resulted in take over of the possession of the plot by the receiver which has subsequently been restored to R-5.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that the entire process of the alleged take over of possession and its subsequent restoration of R-5 is only a paper formality without actual possession having ever been taken over by either the bank or the receiver. He drew our attention to paras 2 and 4 of the additional affidavit filed by R-5 in which the said respondent has stated: