Dismissed

Imthiyas Ahamed v. Idbi Bank

DRT18 Dec 2023SA/347/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed a SARFAESI application filed by a tenant challenging seizure measures under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Although the applicant sought a delay for negotiation to retain possession, the Tribunal directed him to hand over vacant possession by 15.01.2024. Remaining interim orders were vacated, and the application is disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed without costs; applicant directed to hand over vacant possession by 15.01.2024; interim orders vacated.

Imthiyas Ahamed versus Idbi Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

SA No. 347 of 2023 18.12.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 18^th day of December, 2023

¶5

Present: ShriGanapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 347 of 2023

¶7

Mr. Imthiyas Ahamed No.5/17, Flat No.A2 Sri Hari Apartments Delli Street, Periyar Nagar Pammal, Chennai – 600 075 ….Applicant

¶8

¶9

The Authorised Officer IDBI Bank Limited Saidapet Branch Opposite to Ashok Leyland Gotha Medu Housing Board Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015

¶10

Mr. R. Srinivasan No.5/17, Flat No.A1 1^st Floor, Sri Hari Apartments Delli Street, Periyar Nagar Pammal, Chennai – 600 075 ….Respondents

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. R. Amudhan Counsel for 1^st Respondent : M/s Shivakumar & Suresh None for 2^nd respondent

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This SA is filed by third party tenant, challenging the measures initiated by respondent bank under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act before Ld. CJM, Chengalpattu in C.M.P.No.6889 of 2022 dated 06.08.2022, for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,32,84,392.19p.

¶15

¶16

SA No. 347 of 2023 18.12.2023

¶17

This case was moved before the bench on 17.07.2023. It is the case of applicant that, he, being a tenant in the schedule property, was not aware of the pending litigation of recovery between the first respondent bank and second respondent / borrower. It is the further case of applicant that they have no objection to the SARFAESI actions of the first respondent bank and in fact would like to participate in the sale proceedings if at all the property is put up for sale, through public auction or private treaty as the case may be. Applicant had pleaded that they intend to negotiate for an amicable settlement with the first respondent bank and the borrowers so that they can continue their possession and in case, if they are not successful in their endeavours to settle the loan dues to the first respondent bank, they may be permitted to vacate the premises by granting two months time for the same.

¶18

Whereas respondent bank had filed its objections and stated that there is huge amount outstanding due for recovery and that it cannot wait for two months for tenants to vacate the premises, since they are already equipped with Ld. CJM order for taking physical possession of the property and therefore objected to the contentions of applicant.

¶19

Considering the submissions of both parties, on principles of equity and justice, this Tribunal passed an order permitting applicant to continue their stay upto 15.09.2023, while they were also permitted to explore the possibility of amicable negotiated settlement with the bank and the borrower either through public auction or through private treaty, if their talks do not fructify. Liberty was also granted to respondent bank to initiate further course of action for better realisation of their

¶20

¶21

SA No. 347 of 2023 18.12.2023

¶22

outstanding due by proceeding further in accordance to law, if they could substantiate their SARFAESI actions.

¶23

Today Ld. counsel appearing for applicant submitted that they could not arrive at any negotiated settlement regarding purchase of property in terms of their undertaking before the Bench and prayed for passing necessary orders.

¶24

In the result, SA stands dismissed, however without costs. Applicant is directed to hand over vacant physical possession of the subject property to respondent bank by or before 15.01.2024, failing which respondent bank will be at liberty to proceed further in accordance to law. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶25

With the above observations, this SA stands disposed.

¶26

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

¶27

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced in open Court on this the 18^th day of December, 2023)

¶28

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

Imthiyas Ahamed v. Idbi Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imthiyas Ahamed v. Idbi 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

South Indian Bank versus the Venkateswar Steel Traders

Maruthi Plastics versus Canara Bank

Mr R Sridhar versus Indian Bank

Nizamudeen versus Idbi Bank

G Kannan versus Axis Bank

N K Rajasundaram versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.