Partly allowed

P Preethi v. Karur Vysya Bank

DRT19 Jul 2023SA/353/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT allowed the application and dismissed this SARFAESI Application challenging recovery measures. It granted the applicant time to vacate the property until September 31 2023 but dismissed the challenge against possession notice without costs.

What did the court decide?

Time granted until September 31, 2023 to vacate premises; SA dismissed without costs; existing interim orders vacated.

P Preethi versus Karur Vysya Bank — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 353 of 2023 19.07.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 19^th day of July, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 353 of 2023

¶7

P.Preethi

¶8

D/o Thiru.Prem Kumar Flat C-2, Smuruthi Apartments No.12, Sivanandasalai Choolaimedu Chennai – 600 094

¶9

… Applicant

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1. The Branch Manager

¶12

Karur Vysya Bank Ltd No.43, Gangadeeshwar Koil Street Purasawalkam Branch

¶13

Chennai – 600 084

¶14

2. Pridhivi Asset Reconstruction and Securitisation Company Ltd Raja Praasadamu 4^th Floor, Wing – I Plot No.6, 61 & 6B Masjid Banda Road Kondapur Hyderabad – 500 084 Rep. by its Authorised Officer / Vice President Mr.VLVB Durgaprasad Ambattur Industrial Estate (Tamil Nadu Industrial Estate) Chennai – 600 058

¶15

3. Smt.S.Swarnalatha W/o Thiru.L.Sridharan

¶16

Flat C-2, Smuruthi Apartments No.12, Sivanandasalai Choolaimedu

¶17

¶18

S.A. 353 of 2023 19.07.2023

¶19

Chennai – 600 094

¶20

4. Mr.L.Sridharan

¶21

S/o Thiru.Lakshmi Narasimman Flat C-2, Smuruthi Apartments No.12, Sivanandasalai Choolaimedu Chennai – 600 094 …Respondents

¶22

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶23

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. P.Srinivasan, Geetha Srinivasan, S.Sujatha & R.Balasubramanian

¶24

Counsel for 2^nd Respondent : M/s. Surya Teja SS Nalla, Aishwarya S Nathan & KP Uddish

¶25

Respondent 1, 3 & 4 remained absent

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This SA is filed challenging the measures initiated by respondent bank under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act before Ld.CMM, Egmore in Crl.M.P. No. 17623 of 2022 dated 07.10.2022 for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,59,68,346/-.

¶28

Heard the Ld.Counsels appearing for both the parties.

¶29

It is the case of applicant that she is a tenant in the schedule premises and hence a third party to the default and consequent recovery measures between the borrowers and 2^nd respondent assignee. It is the further case of applicant that they may continue to be in possession of the premises till 30.09.2023, by which date they undertake to vacate the premises themselves and deliver vacant possession thereof.

¶30

Whereas Ld.Counsel for 2^nd respondent ARC submitted that tenant is aware of the actions of respondent as notices were affixed on the premises and notwithstanding

¶31

¶32

S.A. 353 of 2023 19.07.2023

¶33

the present challenge, borrower had also challenged the actions of the secured creditor in Hon’ble DRT – 2 against the issuance of possession notice which all facts are known to the parties, since the warrant is dated October 2022 and at the resistance of applicant herein, police assistance is also sought for. However applicants had been continuing their resistance and approached this Tribunal for further extension of time and are asking for unwarranted sympathies.

¶34

Whereas Ld.Counsel for applicant submits that they have nothing to do with the initiation of challenge by the principal borrower / mortgagor of the property and that they will be able to vacate the premises by themselves by or before 30.09.2022 and submits that applicants had also filed an undertaking affidavit to that effect. Ld.Counsel for applicant further submits that they will have no objection, for the secured creditor to bring the property to sale in the course of their recovery as contemplated under SARFAESI and can also mention in their proposed sale notice that the tenant would vacate the premises by 30.09.2023.

¶35

However Ld.Counsel appearing for 2^nd respondent ARC, Mr.Surya Teja SS Nalla, vehemently opposed granting of any extension of time and submitted that there are no bonafides on the part of applicant to continue their possession, since they were competent enough to resist even the police assistance that was granted in favour of the secured creditor for taking physical possession of the property and therefore submitted that there need not be any indulgence on the part of this tribunal by granting extensions of time for vacating the premises.

¶36

¶37

S.A. 353 of 2023 19.07.2023

¶38

In the circumstances, as applicant could not establish any bonafides for continuing their stay in the premises and as they are already put on notice since October 2022, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that applicant, can be finally granted time up to 31.07.2023 to vacate the premises, failing which 2^nd respondent ARC will be entitled to proceed further in accordance to law for executing their warrant in terms of Ld.CMM order dated 07.10.2022.

¶39

Accordingly, this 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

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

¶42

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

¶43

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

P Preethi v. Karur Vysya Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Preethi v. Karur Vysya 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

G Vijayakumar versus Axis Bank

Rajesh Balaguru Moorthy versus Hdfc Bank

Sankar Subramani versus The Authourised Officer Ms Idfc First Bank Limited

Mrs Pooja lakshmi versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Encore Assets Reconstruction Company Private Limited versus M/S Sujatha Biotech

Yes Bank versus M/S Sri Lakshmi Transports