$~10

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4942/2021 & CM APPL. 15177/2021

M/S DELHI AUOTS (JASOLA) ..... Petitioner

Through: Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Swati Singh, Adv.

versus

PUNJAB AND SIND BANK & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Rajinder Wali, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, Adv.
for R-2.
Mr. Anand Aggarwal & Ms. Reena
Jain, Advs. for R-3.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

ORDER
% 03.05.2021

The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video

conferencing.
1. Mr. Rajinder Wali, learned counsel, enters appearance on behalf of
respondent no. 1/Punjab & Sind Bank [“PSB”]. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan
Dwivedi, learned counsel, enters appearance on behalf of respondent no.
2/Canara Bank. Mr. Anand Aggarwal, learned counsel, enters appearance
on behalf of respondent no.3/M/s Delhi Automobiles Limited.
2. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 seek time to file their
counter affidavits.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:SHITU NAGPAL
W.P.(C) 4942/2021 Page 1 of 3
Signing Date:04.05.2021
07:17:10
 3. Ms. Geeta Luthra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner, presses for interim relief. She submits that the petitioner is
running the petrol pump in question at Jasola, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi
and maintains and operates two bank accounts, one in Jammu & Kashmir
Bank and the other in Canara Bank. She submits that the impugned letter
dated 31.03.2021, issued by the PSB to Canara Bank is without authority
of law, inasmuch as, respondent no.1 has not approached the Recovery
Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal [“DRT”] for attachment of the
account in question maintained in Canara Bank. Ms. Luthra further states
that no notice or hearing was afforded to the petitioner prior to issuance
of the impugned communication by PSB to Canara Bank.
4. Mr. Wali submits upon instructions that the PSB has not sought
attachment of any accounts of the petitioner. He states that the impugned
communication dated 31.03.2021 is in respect of the accounts of
respondent no. 3 alone. According to him, the petitioner is a partnership
firm formed after the institution of recovery proceedings by PSB against
the respondent no.3-company. He states that PSB has been informed by
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. that the respondent no. 3, which was a debtor
of PSB, is the licensee of the petrol pump in question. Accordingly, PSB
had filed recovery proceedings before the DRT against respondent no. 3,
which have led to the issuance of two recovery certificates. The account
in Canara Bank being in the name of the respondent no. 3, Mr. Wali
submits that PSB has correctly invoked the circular of the Reserve Bank
of India (“RBI”) dated 06.08.2020, referred to in the impugned
communication.
5. Ms. Luthra submits that the petitioner has in fact been running the

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:SHITU NAGPAL
W.P.(C) 4942/2021 Page 2 of 3
Signing Date:04.05.2021
07:17:10
 petrol pump since the year 2001, although the petrol pump remained
allotted in the name of respondent no. 3. According to Ms. Luthra, the
income and assets of the petrol pump (which is admittedly owned by
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.) are reflected in the accounts of the petitioner
and not of respondent no. 3. However, she does not dispute that the
account in question is in the name of respondent no. 3, and that
respondent no. 3 is the certificate-debtor in the proceedings before the
DRT.
6. I do not find the petitioner to have made out a prima facie case for
grant of an ad-interim order. It is undisputed that the account in question
is in the name of respondent no. 3 and not of the petitioner. The petrol
pump also remains allotted in the name of respondent no. 3 and not of the
petitioner. The question of the petitioner’s locus to maintain the present
petition would therefore also require consideration. The petitioner has not
challenged the circular dated 06.08.2020 issued by the RBI, but contests
its applicability to the facts of the present case. In my view, Ms. Luthra’s
contention inter alia that the account is nonetheless that of the petitioner,
cannot be decided without calling for affidavits of the parties.
7. Counter affidavits may be filed within four weeks. Rejoinders
thereto, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
8. List on 13.07.2021.
9. In the meantime, the pendency of this writ petition will not come in
the way of further proceedings before the DRT, which may proceed in
accordance with law.

MAY 3, 2021/‘hkaur’ PRATEEK JALAN, J

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:SHITU NAGPAL
W.P.(C) 4942/2021 Page 3 of 3
Signing Date:04.05.2021
07:17:10