Dismissed

Gireesh Sivasankar v. Sundaram Home Finance Ltd.

DRAT21 Nov 2024REGULAR APPEAL/14/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed an appeal filed by an appellant claiming property ownership. The tribunal held the appellant was not the owner at the time of the filing and thus not an aggrieved party, with dues settled by the actual owner. Consequently, the appeal lacked substance.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. Each party to bear his own costs.

Gireesh Sivasankar versus Sundaram Home Finance Ltd. — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRAT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 21^st of November, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Chandrasekharan CHAIRPERSON

¶4

R.A (SA): 14/2024

¶5

(SA 495/2023 on the file of DRT -II, Ernakulam)

¶6

Between

¶7

Gireesh Sivasankar, S/o. Sivasankaran Pillai, Sivanivas, Thiruvampady, P.O., Alappuzha – 673 582

¶8

… Appellant

¶9

And

¶10

Sundaram Home Finance Ltd.,

¶11

Kottayam Branch, 1^st Floor,

¶12

SNDP Kottayam Union Office Building,

¶13

S.N. Square, S.N. Junction,

¶14

M.C. Road, Kottayam 686 001,

¶15

Represented by its Branch Manager.

¶16

The Authorised Officer,

¶17

Sundaram Home Finance Ltd.,

¶18

Kottayam Branch, 1^st Floor, SNDP Kottayam Union Office Building, S.N. Square, S.N. Junction,

¶19

M.C. Road, Kottayam 686 001.

¶20

Rajeev Bhasker Warrier,

¶21

Rajeevam House, Thathampally PO, Alappuzha – 688 013.

¶22

... Respondents

¶23

Counsel for Appellant : Mrs. P Meghana Nair Counsel for Respondent R1 & R2 : Mr. R.Chandramohan

¶24

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The SA 495/2023 was filed by Appellant before DRT –II, Ernakulam, claiming himself as owner of the property. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Institution raised objection that the Appellant had already sold the property to Respondent No.3 through a registered sale deed, therefore, he cannot make any claim in respect of the property and he is not an aggrieved party. Learned Presiding Officer, after hearing both sides, dismissed the said SA by order dated 13.11.2023. Challenging the same, this Appeal is filed.

¶27

As already indicated on 11.11.2024, Respondents 1 and 2 Institution filed a Memo stating that the outstanding amount due and payable by Respondent No.3 to the tune of Rs.58 Lakhs was paid by Respondent No.3 by One Time Settlement (OTS). However, at the request of Learned Counsel for Appellant, time was given to get instructions with regard to settlement Memo filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Institution.

¶28

¶29

Today also, the Learned Counsel for Appellant submits

¶30

that he is not in a position to get instructions.

¶31

In the light of the findings reached by Learned Tribunal

¶32

that the Appellant was no more the owner of the property at the time of filing of the SA and he is not an aggrieved party, and also of the fact that Respondent No.3 had settled his dues payable to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Institution, nothing survives in this Appeal to adjudicate. Therefore, this Appeal in R.A(S.A):14/2024 is dismissed. Both parties shall

¶33

bear their own costs . All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶34

[Dictated to Athistamani, PS, in open court, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me this 21^st of November, 2024]

¶35

Sd/[ Justice G. Chandrasekharan] CHAIRPERSON

¶36

Gireesh Sivasankar v. Sundaram Home Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gireesh Sivasankar v. Sundaram Home Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Nazer A.P versus The Calicut Co- Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Kamakshi Foods versus a.O.,Bank of Baroda

Rolling Space Serviced Apartments versus Indian Bank

G Kamal Chand versus Dbs Bank Limited

Mr.Sivakumar Prop M/s Arul Velava Poultry Farm versus Canara Bank

Syed Faiyaz S a versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited