102+204 CWP IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA RAVINDER KAUR AND ORS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ORS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present:- Mr. Mr. Tegjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Salil Mr. Nitin Grover, Advocate for respondent No.3 (through Video Conferencing). Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate and Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate for respondent No.4. **** SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner Singh, husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners No.2 and 3, who had taken loan taken over by Magn 2. It is pertinen the loan to respondent No.3 It is further pertinent to point out that the loanee No.4- Max New York Life Insurance 3. Incidentally, the dec 05.04.2009. Till t CWP-24799-2018 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RAVINDER KAUR AND ORS Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ORS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Tegjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. Nitin Grover, Advocate for respondent No.3 (through Video Conferencing). Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate and Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate for respondent No.4. **** SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (Oral) The petitioners, are the legal heirs of deceased Mohinder Pal Singh, husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners No.2 and 3, who had taken loan from GE Money Housing Finance which was taken over by Magna Housing Finance-respondent No.2. It is pertinent to point out that respondent No.2 respondent No.3- Assets Reconstruction It is further pertinent to point out that the loanee Max New York Life Insurance Company Incidentally, the deceased-husband of petitioner No.1 Till then, the payment of loan was as per the time schedule. Later -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-24799-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.09.2025 ...Petitioners ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ORS ...Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Sabhlok, Sr. DAG, Punjab. for respondent No.3 (through Video Conferencing). Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate and Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate for respondent No.4. the legal heirs of deceased Mohinder Pal Singh, husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners No.2 and 3, who Housing Finance which was subsequently respondent No.2. t to point out that respondent No.2 assigned Reconstruction Company (India) Limited. It is further pertinent to point out that the loanee was insured with respondent Company Limited. husband of petitioner No.1 died on the payment of loan was as per the time schedule. Later KANIKA 2025.09.12 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 102+204 CWP defaults took place and notice Reconstruction of Fi 2002, was issued on 02.02.2018 to 4. Challenging the SARFAESI Act filed a Civil S per information derived from the website of the District Court, North Delhi. 5. Meanwhile, the petitioner taking cognizan parties to maintain till date. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties, it appears that the entire issue boils down on the fact that certain documents which the insurance company requires to process the insurance by the petitioner 16.12.2019, which is respondent No.4 reproduced below: 7. After hearing learned counsel for rival parties, this Court is of the considered view that since CWP-24799-2018 (O&M) defaults took place and notice under Section 13 (2) of Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, was issued on 02.02.2018 to the husband of petitioner No.1. Challenging the notice issued under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act, petitioner No.1-borrower (widow of Civil Suit No. 1263 of 2013 which was withdrawn on 05.03.2025 as per information derived from the website of the District Court, North Delhi. Meanwhile, the petitioners preferred this petition and while taking cognizance of this matter on 27.09.2018, an parties to maintain status quo was passed which continues to After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties, it appears that the entire issue boils down on the fact that certain documents which the insurance company requires to process the insurance by the petitioners. These documents are contained in Annexure R which is a letter issued in favour of petitioner No.1 by the respondent No.4- Insurance Company. The abovesaid documents are reproduced below:- “1. Duly filled Claimant Statement statement’ (format for all schemes enclosed) to be completed, signed, witnessed and attested by Master Policy holder. 2. Original/Attested copy of Death Certificate issued by Municipal Authorities. 3. Copy of cancelled cheque/bank passbook wherein account number and name of th Mandate form (Format enclosed) attested by Bank. 4. Photo ID and address proof of Nominee. After hearing learned counsel for rival parties, this Court is of the considered view that since fair stand is taken by -2- under Section 13 (2) of Securitisation and nancial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, the husband of petitioner No.1. notice issued under Section 13 (2) of (widow of Mohinder Pal Singh) which was withdrawn on 05.03.2025 as per information derived from the website of the District Court, North Delhi. preferred this petition and while this matter on 27.09.2018, an order directing the rival which continues to remain in force After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties, it appears that the entire issue boils down on the fact that certain documents which the insurance company requires to process the insurance claim were not supplied e contained in Annexure R-7 dated issued in favour of petitioner No.1 by the The abovesaid documents are Duly filled Claimant Statement-‘Claimant r all schemes enclosed) to be completed, signed, witnessed and attested by Master Policy holder. Original/Attested copy of Death Certificate issued Copy of cancelled cheque/bank passbook wherein account number and name of the nominee is printed/EFT (Format enclosed) attested by Bank. Photo ID and address proof of Nominee.” After hearing learned counsel for rival parties, this Court is of taken by counsel for the petitioners KANIKA 2025.09.12 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 102+204 CWP that all the aforesaid petitioner No.1 to the insurance company petition, thus, 8. Accordingly, t in case the petitioner insurance company company shall process the the same to the petitioner 9. The aforesaid exercise needs to be concluded within a period of four weeks from the date of supply of the documents by the petitioner 10. Till the time, the passes speaking order, the petitioners 11. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 08.09.2025 Kanika CWP-24799-2018 (O&M) that all the aforesaid four documents, as far as possible r No.1 to the insurance company within a period of three weeks. T , thus, need not be kept pending. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with direction that in case the petitioners supplies all the above said insurance company within a period of three weeks from today company shall process the claim and pass speaki the same to the petitioners within further period of four weeks thereafter. The aforesaid exercise needs to be concluded within a period of from the date of supply of the documents by the petitioner Till the time, the insurance company process passes speaking order, status quo, as already ordered, s. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No -3- as far as possible, shall be supplied by within a period of three weeks. This petition stands disposed of with direction that supplies all the above said four documents to the weeks from today, the insurance and pass speaking order and communicate within further period of four weeks thereafter. The aforesaid exercise needs to be concluded within a period of from the date of supply of the documents by the petitioners. insurance company processes the claim and , as already ordered, shall continue to protect Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE (SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No KANIKA 2025.09.12 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document