ARJUN GANGANI Vs. DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner Arjun Gangani has approached this Court for assailing the order dated 16.04.2014 passed by Debt Rent Tribunal, Jaipur in Securitization Application (SA) No.85/2013 and also the orders dated

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's son Shri Amit Gangani took Cash Credit Facility from the respondent Dena Bank by keeping the petitioner's residential premises as mortgage with the Bank by way of security. The petitioner who stood as a guarantor for his son Amit. However, he appears to have executed an agreement for sale of the secured assets in favour of one Suresh Kumawat for a consideration of Rs. 1.30 crore/-. It is claimed that before entering into the agreement the purchaser was made aware of the fact that the house was mortgaged with the Bank. The petitioner claims that he did not receive any consideration towards the agreement which was allegedly signed under the pressure of one Kahaiyalal Kumawat who gave assurance to the petitioner that the purchaser would settle the loan account and the excess amount would be paid to the petitioner. The sale deed was registered. The petitioner claims that since he was in a dire need of money, he agreed to sell the house under false assurance of Shri Kanhaiyalal Kumawat. It is further averred that the purchasers/respondent Nos.2 to 5 filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner and the Dena Bank on 30.05.2013. The respondent Dena Bank took symbolic possession of the house from the petitioner because the loan was not repaid. The petitioner further claims that the Dena Bank took physical possession of the property from the petitioner on 09.09.2013.

(3.) The respondents purchasers filed an application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act in the DRT, Jaipur claiming that they were ready to clear off the dues towards the loan account and that the possession of the house be restored to them with the chain of original title documents.