Delhi High Court
Gaganjeet Kaur vs The Authorised Officer, Hinduja … on 27 June, 2025
$~DB-8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 27th June, 2025
+ W.P.(C) 8560/2025
GAGANJEET KAUR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bhushan Mahendra, Adv.
versus
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, HINDUJA HOUSING
FINANCE AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Gaurav Srivastava, Adv.
for R-1
Mr. Saurav Bhasin, Adv. for
R-4 and 5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
MANOJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 37017/2025 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 8560/2025
3. The petitioner herein had filed a Securitization Application No.
173/2025 (‘SA’) before the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal-II
(hereinafter referred to as ‘DRT-II’) (Gaganjeet Kaur vs. Hinduja
Housing Finance Limited and Ors.). They sought for interim relief
which was declined by the learned DRT-II vide Order dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PRIYADARSHANI JAIN W.P.(C) 8560/2025 Page 1 of 3
Signing Date:27.06.2025
19:27:05
09.06.2025.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Appeal
under Section 18 of the Securitization And Reconstruction Of
Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
(hereinafter referred to as ‘SARFAESI Act‘) before the learned Debt
Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘DRAT’).
5. Such appeal was, reportedly, filed on 10.06.2025 along with
one interlocutory application.
6. The grievance of the petitioner herein is very limited. It is
submitted that such appeal has not been heard so far and her appeal
and prayer for grant of interim relief is now fixed for 14.07.2025
before DRAT. It is also informed that the Hon’ble Chairman of
Appellate Tribunal is also not available and is reported to be on leave
till 14.07.2025.
7. It is divulged that the petitioner has received another notice
along with Order dated 05.05.2025 passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby, a
receiver has been appointed for the purpose of taking possession of the
premises in question i.e. same premises. It is submitted that if the
possession is taken over by the receiver, the appeal as such, would
become infructuous.
8. Keeping in mind the abovesaid peculiar development and the
fact that if receiver is allowed to take over the possession of the
property in question, the appeal may become infructuous, the present
petition is disposed of with direction to respondent no. 1 to not take
any further precipitative action in pursuance of the abovesaid Order
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PRIYADARSHANI JAIN W.P.(C) 8560/2025 Page 2 of 3
Signing Date:27.06.2025
19:27:05
dated 05.05.2025 till 14.07.2025.
9. It is, however, clarified that the abovesaid Order has been
passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case as
the appeal has yet not been considered by the learned Appellate
Tribunal and the abovesaid Order has been passed without going into
the merits of the case and, therefore, no special equity of any nature
whatsoever would flow in favour of the petitioner by the present
order.
10. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
11. Copy of the Order be given dasti under signatures of Court
Masters.
MANOJ JAIN, J
(VACATION JUDGE)
RENU BHATNAGAR, J
(VACATION JUDGE)
JUNE 27, 2025
Sk/Pallavi/sm
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PRIYADARSHANI JAIN W.P.(C) 8560/2025 Page 3 of 3
Signing Date:27.06.2025
19:27:05