Disposed

Messrs Tejas Corporate Services S and D Division v. Karur Vysya Bank

DRAT8 Sept 2023MISC APPEAL/31/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellate tribunal disposed of an appeal against an interim order directing security deposit in a SARFAESI matter. It remanded the main application to the DRT for decision on merits within three months, maintaining the existing status quo until disposal, and directed both parties to cooperate.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal below directed to decide main SA No. 519/2020 within three months; status quo order continued until disposal of Securitization Application.

Messrs Tejas Corporate Services S and D Division versus Karur… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

MA(SA) 31/2021

¶2

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶3

Dated the 8^th of September, 2023

¶4

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravi Kumar CHAIRPERSON

¶5

MA (SA) 31/2021

¶6

( IA 1954/2020 in SA No.519/2020 on the file of DRT Coimbatore)

¶7

Between

¶8

M/s Tejas Corporate Services S and D Divison, Rep. by its Partner C. Mahesh Kumar, 2B2, Microwave Station Backside, T. Kottampatty, Palladam Road, Pollachi 642 002.

¶9

……Appellant

¶10

And

¶11

M/s Karur Vysya Bank, Rep. by its Authorised Officer, Asset Recovery Branch, 1498C, KVB Towers, 3^rd Floor, Avinashi Road, Peelamedu, Coimbatore 641 004.

¶12

Mrs. K. Umamaheswari, W/o Karthigeyan, No.44, Ram Nagar Main Road, Thirupur 641 602.

¶13

….. Respondents

¶14

Counsel for Appellant : M/s P. Tamilavel & Co. Counsel for 1^st Respondent : M/s A. Arun Babu

MA(SA) 31/2021

ORDER

This Appeal is preferred under Section 18 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act) against an interim order dated 4.1.2021 in IA 1954/2020 in SA 519/2020 on the file of DRT, Coimbatore, wherein Tribunal below directed appellant to deposit Rs.10.00 lakhs for granting an interim order.

¶19

Heard advocate for appellant and perused material papers and

¶20

impugned order dated 4.1.2021.

¶21

It is represented that Rs.10.00 lakhs directed by the Tribunal below is not deposited, consequent to which, sale is conducted and knocked down in favour of 2^nd respondent herein. Admittedly, main SA is still pending before Tribunal below. Therefore, without going into merits and demerits of the case, contentions raised by advocate for appellant and correctness of impugned order dated 4.1.2021, I deem it proper to direct Tribunal below to decide main SA No. 519/2020 on merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in its interim order.

¶22

It is further represented that at the time of entertaining this Appeal,

¶23

this Tribunal granted status quo on 28.6.2021. Considering the same, said status quo order shall continue till disposal of Securitization Application.

¶24

¶25

MA(SA) 31/2021

¶26

For the above reasons, Tribunal below is directed to dispose of SA

¶27

519/2020 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by giving opportunity to both parties. Both parties shall co-operate with Tribunal below in deciding the SA and in compliance of direction given by this Tribunal. If appellant fails to cooperative with Tribunal below, status quo order of this Tribunal dated 28.6.2021 shall stand vacated.

¶28

Appeal MA (SA) 31/2021 is disposed of accordingly with no order as to

¶29

costs.

¶30

7. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶31

[Dictated to Steno(SN), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 12^th June, 2023)

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

[ Justice S. Ravi Kumar ] CHAIRPERSON

¶34

Messrs Tejas Corporate Services S and D Division v. Karur Vysya Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Messrs Tejas Corporate Services S and D Division v. Karur Vysya Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

V S Senthil Kumar versus State Bank of India

smt Vijayalakshmi versus Sree Subramanyeswara Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Jayaprakash S versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

N Kavitha and Ors. versus Bank of Baroda and Anr.

M/s Lucky Footwear Components versus Indian Bank

Indus Ind Bank Ltd. versus M/S Nicco Uco Alliance Credit Ltd.