Dismissed

Water Front Pier Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v. Ifci Limited

DRT19 Jun 2023SA/211/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's S.A. challenging a Possession Notice. The court found no infirmities in the procedure and held that documents confirmed security interest was created for loans availed by a principal borrower.

What did the court decide?

The SARFAESI Application was dismissed without costs. Interim orders were vacated and other pending requests closed.

Water Front Pier Hotel Pvt. Ltd. versus Ifci Limited — Arbitration | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 211 of 2023 19.06.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 19^th day of June, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 211 of 2023

¶7

Water Front Pier Hotel Pvt.Ltd

¶8

Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Ms.T.S.Santhi Greenways Towers, 2^nd Floor No.119, St.Mary’s Road Abhiramapuram Chennai – 600 029

¶9

Also at: Water Front Pier Hotel Pvt.Ltd Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Ms.T.S.Santhi Pioneer Regency Towers, 132 (Old # 33) Nelson Manickam Road Chennai – 600 029 … Applicant

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1. IFCI Limted

¶12

IFCI Tower, 61, Nehru Place New Delhi – 110 019

¶13

2. Kishore Biyani

¶14

406, Jeevan Vihar Manav Mandir Road Mumbai – 400 006

¶15

3. Vijay Biyani

¶16

Flat No.3603, Vivarea Towers B wing, S.G.Marg, Jacob Circle, Mahalaxmi Mumbai – 400 006

¶17

¶18

S.A. 211 of 2023 19.06.2023

¶19

4. Nishta Mall Management Company Pvt Ltd

¶20

V3s Mall, Big Bazar

¶21

2^nd Floor, East Centre, Laxmi Nagar Vikas Marg Delhi – 110 092

¶22

Also at:

¶23

Nishta Mall Management Company Pvt Ltd

¶24

Pantaloons Knowledge House Shyam Nagar Jogeshwari Vikhroli Link Road Jogeshwari East Mumbai – 400 060 …Respondents

¶25

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶26

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Abitha Banu & Pradeep Raj Counsel for 1^st Respondent : M/s. T.S.Gopalan and Co. & K.Rajesh Respondents 2 to 4 remained absent

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This SA is filed by applicant challenging the Possession Notice dated 20.01.2023 issued by respondent institution for recovery of a sum of Rs.44,96,27,767/-.

¶29

Heard Ld.Counsels appearing for both the parties.

¶30

It is the case of applicant that there is no security interest created with the respondent financial institution to initiate SARFAESI actions. It is their bone of contention that the alleged mortgage deed says that Rs.175 crores has been given to the mortgagor while it is their express case, as mortgagors, that they have not received any consideration whatsoever from the 1^st respondent financial institution. Ld.Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that having not received any consideration, no

¶31

¶32

S.A. 211 of 2023 19.06.2023

¶33

mortgage is created, consequent to which there is no security interest exercisable by the secured creditor over the schedule mentioned property. Ld.Counsel for applicant fairly submits that they are not disputing the procedure adopted by the 1^st respondent while issuing the impugned possession notice, but are only aggrieved that the actions are not sustainable owing to lack of any security interest in their favour pursuant to the mortgage deed, as the terms are not specifying the requirements of law. Submitting so, Ld.Counsel prayed for passing appropriate orders.

¶34

Whereas Ld.Counsel appearing for 1^st respondent financial institution submitted that the mortgage deed, although contains the term that Rs.175 crores is to be given to the mortgagor, the other terms and conditions and the board resolution of the corporate guarantor, who is the applicant herein, confirms that the loan funds contemplated is to the principal borrower M/s. Genuine Asset Operators Private Limited and not to the applicant herein, who are to extend mere guarantee and provide collateral security thereupon. The documents executed and the documents furnished shall only establish the contracted loan between 1^st respondent and the principal borrower and confirm that the present applicant herein, is only a mortgagor / guarantor. Ld.Counsel for 1^st respondent has read over the terms of the contract which concluded and confirmed that applicant herein had acquiesced themselves to be guarantors to the principal borrowers and that they are not the loanees for 1^st respondent financial institution to release any of the loan funds in their favour. Ld.Counsel for respondent financial institution submitted that since it a printed format, the word mortgagor might have been to a particular place when it should have been the borrower and has taken shelter of General clauses Act which includes the terms to be read as required for the contract and not against to the

¶35

¶36

S.A. 211 of 2023 19.06.2023

¶37

contemplated terms between the contracted parties. Ld.Counsel submitted that respondent financial institution has followed the procedure as warranted under law and that borrowers are still continuing their default to the 1^st respondent financial institution and that they are not aggrieved by their actions, consequent upon which only the mortgagor / guarantor has approached this Tribunal through this SA. Ld.Counsel submits that as there are no merits in the present SA, the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

In the circumstances, as applicant could not establish any infirmities in the procedure adopted by the 1^st respondent, while issuing the impugned possession notice and even otherwise, there are adequate documents to establish and confirm that appropriate security interest has been created in favour of 1^st respondent by executing necessary mortgage deeds over the immovable property offered as collateral security by applicant herein, for due discharge of loan funds availed by M/s. Genuine Assets Operators Private Limited, there are no tenable merits in the present SA and the same is liable to be, consequently dismissed.

¶39

Accordingly SA stands dismissed, however without costs. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶40

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶41

¶42

S.A. 211 of 2023 19.06.2023

¶43

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

¶44

guidelines.

¶45

(Dictated to Stenographer (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me through e- drt, on this the 19^th day of June, 2023)

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Water Front Pier Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v. Ifci Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Water Front Pier Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v. Ifci Limited

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

Ceedeeyes Healthcare Services Pvt. Ltd. versus The a O Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

Bkr Hotels versus Union Bank of India

Sridevi versus Aptus value housing finance limited

Union Bank of India versus Vinoth Kumar

Kbs Manian Bros Pvt. Ltd. Rep by its Director Mr Devasigamani Vignesh versus Canara Bank

Sri Padma balaji Transport versus Canara Bank