Dismissed

Rajini Kanth v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

DRT22 Sept 2023SA/324/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed an application challenging SARFAESI measures, staying execution of Section 14 orders until September 25, 2023, to allow the applicant time to vacate premises.

What did the court decide?

SA dismissed; execution of Section 14 orders stayed till 25.9.2023; liberty to execute forthwith if premises not vacated.

Rajini Kanth versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 22^nd day of September, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

SA No.324 of 2023

¶6

Dr. R. RajiniKanth S/o K. Raji No.269, Gandhi Nagar Colony Ayothiyapattanam, Valapadi (Post) Salem District

¶7

Now at No.119, Bell’s Road, Triplicane Chennai – 600 014

¶8

Mr. T. Janakiraman S/o Thirunavukarasu F2, Sunshine Flats, Old No.3/71 New No.38/1, 2^nd Main Road, Srinivasapuram Korattur R S, Thiruvallur – 600 076 …Applicants

¶9

Versus

¶10

The Authorized Officer Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited 27 BKC, C27, Block Bandra Kurla Complex (E) Mumbai – 400 051

¶11

Branch Office at 5^th Floor, Samson Towers 402L, Pantheon Road, Egmore Chennai – 600 008

¶12

Mr. B.S. Radhakrishnan S/o P. Balasundaram No.15/8, Poes Road, 2^nd Street Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018 …Respondents Counsel for Applicants : M/s Antony Selvam Counsel for 1^st Respondent : M/s S.K. Mariyappan Counsel for 2^nd Respondent : ….

¶13

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

This Securitization Application in short SA is filed challenging the measures taken by the respondent under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), herein after been referred as SARFAESI Act or the Act as the case.

¶16

The applicant claims to be in occupation of the land at Poes Road in virtue of a lease agreement entered on 1.3.2016 and renewed on 1.12.2022 with the 2^nd respondent and the applicant claimed to have paid a sum of Rs.22 Lakhs as deposit to the 2^nd respondent.

¶17

The respondent entered appearance on Caveat and after hearing both sides this Tribunal by the order dated 21.7.2023 held that the applicant placing reliance on the so called lease deed claimed to have extended by the 2^nd respondent cannot scuttle the measures taken by the respondent as per the provisions of the Act. However the eviction of the applicant was stayed so as to find out how much time can be given to the applicant to vacate the premises. The applicant was also directed to file an affidavit under taking to vacate the premises.

¶18

Pursuant to the above direction an affidavit was filed by the applicant under taking to vacate the premises in 2 months time from 25.7.2023 said affidavit is taken on file. The respondents have no objection in granting time till 25.9.2023.

¶19

¶20

Hence view of the above situation the following orders are passed: -

¶21

(a) SA No.324 of 2023 stands dismissed.

¶22

(b) The 1^st respondent is directed not to execute Section 14 orders till 25.9.2023, and in case the applicant does not vacate the premises on or before 25.9.2023, the respondent will be liberty to execute the order under Section 14 forthwith.

¶23

¶24