Disposed

M/s Chandan Enterprises v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

DRAT3 Apr 2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an appeal seeking to set aside Tribunal orders regarding physical possession of mortgaged property. The Court directed maintenance of status quo and the release of the appellant's pre deposit to the financial institution, pending the Tribunal's decision on the securitization application.

What did the court decide?

Status quo maintained; appellant's pre deposit with interest to be released to respondent F.I.; Tribunal directed to decide pending S.A. within three months.

M/s Chandan Enterprises versus Cholamandalam Investment and… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

Appeal Dy. No. 496/2025 Date: 03.04.2025

¶2

M/s Chandan Enterprises Vs. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

¶3

Present: Shri S. K. Gupta, counsel for the appellant, Shri V. K. Shukla, counsel for the respondent-F.I.,

¶4

On a mention being made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the present case has been taken up today.

¶5

The present appeal has been filed along with urgency application, in which it has been stated that pursuant to the notice dated 12.03.2025, the respondent-F.I. is going to take physical possession of the property in question. Copy of the said notice is appended at page no. 45 to the memo of appeal. Therefore, there is urgency in this matter and it is prayed that the matter may be heard.

¶6

Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶7

The prayer made in the present appeal is for setting aside the orders dated 28.03.2025 & 02.01.2025 passed by the Tribunal below in S.A. No. 358/2023 and for restraining the financial institution from taking physical possession of the mortgaged property, which is in the name of appellant no. 3 in pursuance of the order dated 20.06.2023 passed by the ADM (F&R) Agra till the disposal of the S.A. on the ground that there are illegality in issuance of possession notice dated 14.02.2022, which is before the date of demand notice dated 14.11.2022. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the second illegality is that the possession was taken by the F.I. prior to delivery the possession notice, which is violation of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶8

Learned counsel for the respondent-F.I. submits that the total dues against the appellant is Rs. 1,49,22,000/- as on 02.01.2025 and the appellant has not deposited the amount towards pre-deposit, therefore, the present appeal is not maintainable. It is further contended that pursuant to the earlier order dated 07.03.2025 passed by this Tribunal, the appellant has remedy to file appropriate application before the Tribunal below, but instead of it, the urgency application has been filed by the appellant and on the basis of urgency application, the Tribunal below has passed the order impugned, in which the learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality.

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondent-F.I. further states that the amount deposited by the appellant towards pre-deposit before this Tribunal may be released in favour of the respondent-F.I., which has not been objected by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶10

After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, since the securitization application is still pending before the Tribunal below, therefore, the present appeal stands disposed off with direction upon the Tribunal below to consider and decide the pending S.A. No. 358/2023 in accordance with law most expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Till that time or disposal of the securitization application, whichever is earlier, the status quo qua the property in question as it exists today shall be maintained by all the parties.

¶11

The amount deposited by the appellant towards pre-deposit along with interest accrued thereupon is directed to be

¶12

released in favour of the respondent-F.I. within fortnight from today,

¶13

Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson

¶14

Anupam

M/s Chandan Enterprises v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Chandan Enterprises v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Balaji Trading versus Punjab National Bank

Ms Kitty Creations versus Indian Overseas Bank

Shailendar Awasti versus Punjab National Bank

Varthana Home Finance Ltd. versus M/s Jai Shri Krishna Gramoduog Samiti

Samit Jain versus Hinduja Housing Finnace Limited

Greenland Fruits and Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. versus Central Bank of India