PARAMJEET SINGH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GURUGRAM, HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dtd. 9/3/2021 (Annexure P-20) passed by the District Magistrate, Gurugram, Haryanarespondent No.1 whereby the application of M/s India Bulls Housing Finance Limited-respondent No.2 preferred under Sec. 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the SARFAESI Act") has been allowed and the Duty Magistrate has been appointed to deliver the possession of the immovable property/secured assets as described in the said order within a period of one month from the date of the order.

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were the sureties/guarantors for the loan granted to the International Coil Limited (ICL), which obtained four loans as detailed in para 2 of the writ petition. Petitioners had tendered guarantee of their assets, which included Villa No.26, Block-Z, Tatvam Villa, Vipur World, Sector-48, Gurugram-122002, Haryana and Villa No.18, Block-Z, Tatvam Villa, Vipur World, Sector-48, Gurugram-122002, Haryana, which is a subject matter of the present writ petition as the order dtd. 9/3/2021 relates to this property.

(3.) After the passing of the said order, petitioners approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi, by filing SA No.4 of 2021 and SA No.5 of 2021. The said Tribunal granted interim protection to the petitioners vide order dtd. 12/2/2021 (Annexures P-18 and P-19) respectively. During the interregnum, respondents filed an application under Sec. 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the District Magistrate, Gurugram, for taking possession of the secured assets, which belong to the petitioners, who are sureties/guarantors. The said application has been allowed vide order dtd. 9/3/2021 (Annexure P-20) vide which the possession of the secured assets i.e. immovable properties have been ordered to be taken and handed over to the respondents. It is this order, which has been challenged by the petitioners asserting that when there was an interim order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi, the said order could not have been passed by the District Magistrate, Gurugram.