Allowed

Mrs Shakira Tahsin v. Indian Bank

DRT20 Nov 2023MA/101/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In M.A. No.101/2023, the Tribunal allowed the application by condoning a 41-day delay. It set aside a previous dismissal order and restored the earlier proceeding. The Court directed that the applicant's deposited refundable amount will be refunded only after the bank obtains vacant possession of the secured property under Section 14 SARFAESI Act. The order directs the Recovery Officer to serve no

What did the court decide?

Coadoned delay, set aside dismissal order dated 10.02.2023, restored MA No.72/2022. Directed that refund of deposited amount with interest shall be granted only after bank confirms vacant possession o

Mrs Shakira Tahsin versus Indian Bank — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

MA No.101/2023 in SA No.294/2012

¶2

20.11.2023

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 20^th day of November, 2023

¶6

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer

¶7

MA No. 101/2023

¶8

¶9

SARFAESI APPLICATION No.294/2012

¶10

Mrs.Shakira Tahsin

¶11

(Legal Heirs of Late Abdul Shukoor) 6/2, New Ni.52/62, Ibrahim Sahib Street Kaspa, Vellore – 632 001 ..... Petitioner / Applicant

¶12

Vs.

¶13

1. The Authorised Officer

¶14

Indian Bank, Asset Recovery Management – II IV Floor, No.55, Ethiraj Salai Egmore

¶15

Chennai – 600 008

¶16

2. Devendra Bhandari

¶17

S/o B.C.Bhandari 112, Govindappa Mudali Street Chennai – 600 001

¶18

3. Jitendra Bhandari

¶19

S/o B.C.Bhandari 112, Govindappa Mudali Street Chennai – 600 001

¶20

4. Mahendra Bhandari

¶21

S/o B.C.Bhandari 112, Govindappa Mudali Street Chennai – 600 001 …. Respondents

¶22

MA No.101/2023 in SA No.294/2012

¶23

¶24

20.11.2023

¶25

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. A.Ajimath Begam & M.M.I.Khaleel Counsel for 1^st Respondent : M/s. N.Somasundaar

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

MA No.101/2023 is filed for condonation of delay of 41 days in preferring a restoration petition against the order of dismissal dated 10.02.2023 in MA No.72/2022 for default and non prosecution. Heard Ld.counsel appearing for petitioner. In the circumstances stated, MA No.101/2023 is allowed. Delay condoned. Dismissal order dated 10.02.2023 is set aside. MA No.72/2022 is restored to file.

¶28

This is an application filed by petitioner claiming refund of the amount deposited, as applicant in SA No.294/2012, in compliance of interim order dated 24.11.2011 and since lying in the deposit of this Tribunal.

¶29

Heard Ld.Counsels appearing for petitioner and 1^st respondent bank. No representation for respondents 2 to 4. Respondents 2 to 4 are called absent.

¶30

It is the case of petitioner that SA No.294/2012 is filed by her challenging the measures initiated by respondent bank under Sec.14 of the SARFAESI Act. It is her further case that in compliance of interim order dated 24.11.2011, she had caused deposit of a sum of Rs.80 Lakhs with this Tribunal as per orders of tribunal. It is submitted that the said SA is allowed on 08.04.2013, as against which an appeal is preferred by Auction purchaser in RA (SA) No.57/2013, which was allowed on 06.03.2014. Respondent bank has also filed a cross appeal in RA (SA) No.139/2013, which was also closed since the appeal filed by Auction purchaser was already allowed. The writ proceedings before the Hon’ble High court of Madras in W.P.No.9156/2014

¶31

MA No.101/2023 in SA No.294/2012

¶32

¶33

20.11.2023

¶34

have also come to an end, holding therein by its order dated 24.01.2019 that there is no CMM available in Vellore and that it is only District Magistrate cum District collector who shall have jurisdiction to entertain a petition filed under Sec.14 of the SARFAESI. Since the CJM, Vellore has passed order without jurisdiction, the same has been set aside and left it open for respondent bank to file a fresh petition under Sec.14 of SARFAESI act before the appropriate authority. Since the same was also confirmed in S.L.P No.13699/2019, the above applicant has lost their case and hence are approaching this Tribunal for return of the conditional amount deposited on the file of DRT-3 in SASR No.4986/2011 in SA No.294/2012 dated 02.12.2011 vide Demand draft Nos.614072 to 614080 dated 30.11.2011. Ld.Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner herein is the sole applicant in SA No.294/2012 and that she has vacated the schedule premises which was sought to be taken possession of under Sec.14 and moved to yet another address since provided in the affidavit. Ld.Counsel further submits that they will have no objection for respondent bank to exercise their rights under Sec.14 of the SARFAESI act and obtain physical delivery of the property and that she may be returned with her conditional deposit on or after obtaining vacant physical possession of the property.

¶35

Ld.Counsel Mr.N.Somasundaar appearing for 1^st respondent bank (who has come on change of vakalat) submitted that 1^st respondent bank has already moved an application under Sec.14 and had obtained orders for taking over physical possession of the property for which an Advocate Commissioner is appointed and who is yet to execute his warrant.

¶36

MA No.101/2023 in SA No.294/2012

¶37

20.11.2023

¶38

¶39

Both the counsels appearing for petitioner as well as 1^st respondent bank had conceded that 1^st respondent bank may be permitted to take physical possession of the property as provided under law, and that after obtaining the same, shall intimate to the Recovery Officer of this Tribunal, by way of filing a memo to that effect after serving notice on the Ld.Counsel for petitioner herein.

¶40

On receipt of such memo, recovery officer is directed to serve notice on all respondents and then prepare necessary order for refunding the amounts of petitioner herein, lying with the Recovery Officer together with subsequent interest earned against the said amounts, from the date of deposit till the date of withdrawal.

¶41

Office is directed to forward a copy of this order to recovery officer for complying with the directions, in the event, respondent bank files memo of confirmation of taking physical possession of the property pursuant to orders under Sec.14 of SARFAESI act.

¶42

In terms of the above directions, MA stands allowed. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs / MAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶43

With the above directions, this MA stands disposed.

¶44

MA No.101/2023 in SA No.294/2012

¶45

20.11.2023

¶46

¶47

A copy of the order be communicated to the parties concerned as per extant

¶48

guidelines.

¶49

(Dictated to Steno (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 20^th day of November, 2023)

¶50

Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mrs Shakira Tahsin v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Shakira Tahsin v. Indian 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

Similar cases

Rbl Bank Limited versus Rajesh Gupta

State Bank of India versus Abhishek Yadav

Punjab National Bank versus Mohit Kumar Arora

Canara Bank versus C K Karigowda

Icici Bank Limited versus Prashanth J

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh Harnek Singh