DEUTSCHE BANK AG vs NALINI GUPTA & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~70 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 15.09.2025 + FAO(OS) (COMM) 243/2024 and CM APPL. 65226/2024 DEUTSCHE BANK AG .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, Mr. Aaditya Singh, Mr. Satwik Mitra, Advs. versus NALINI GUPTA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Pradip Diwan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jha and Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advs. for R-1 Mr. Pragalbh Bhardwaj, Adv. for R- 3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (ORAL) ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. 1. The Appellant (Defendant before the learned Single Judge) assails the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 15.10.2024, in substance, the Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff before the learned Single Judge) claims that her husband-Sh. Nikhil Gupta, while borrowing a loan from the Appellant, mortgaged the entire property, including her share in the said property, by forging her signatures. 2. The Appellant took steps to recover the amount as per the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAVITA PASRICHA FAO(OS) (COMM) 243/2024 Signing Date:18.09.2025 Page 1 of 3 12:04:07 of Security Interest, Act 2002 [hereinafter referred to as ‘SARFAESI Act’]. The Appellant also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of the Civil Procedure [hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’] claiming that under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, the suit is not maintainable. 3. On 15.10.2024, the learned Single Judge made the following observations in Paras 3, 4 and 5 which are extracted as under:- “3. This Court has considered the submission of the defendant no. 1 and perused the original documents produced by defendant no. 1 and compared with the admitted signature