Dismissed

MKaleeswari v. Bajaj Finance limited

DRT4 Oct 2023SA/447/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the SARFAESI application filed by a third-party tenant, who sought breathing time to vacate the mortgaged property, upon the applicant's undertaking to vacate by 30.11.2023.

What did the court decide?

SA dismissed without costs; Applicant permitted to vacate by 30.11.2023; Liberty granted to First Respondent to proceed if possession not handed over by then.

MKaleeswari versus Bajaj Finance limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

SA No.447 of 2023

04.10.2023

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 04^th day of October, 2023

¶6

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 447 of 2023

¶9

Mrs. M. Kaleeswari W/o S.M. Narayanasamy Old D.No.269/1, New D.No.835 Thiruvottiyur High Road Old Washermenpet, Chennai – 600 021 ….Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

The Authorised Officer, Bajaj Finance Limited 8^th Floor, No.177, Delta Wing Raheja Towers, Anna Salai Chennai – 600 002

¶12

Mr. J. Rajasekaran S/o Mr. Jakkaiya No.269/1, TH Road, Old Washermenpet Chennai – 600 021 ….Respondents

¶13

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : Sh. S. Ethiraj Counsel for First Respondent : M/s M. Arunachalam

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This SA is filed by third party tenant, challenging the measures initiated by

¶17

respondent institution under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act before Ld. CMM, Egmore in vide Crl.M.P.No.28026 of 2022dated 20.10.2022, for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,03,44,967/-

¶18

Memo vide SR No.13837/23 is filed on behalf of applicant submitting therein that

¶19

the applicant is a third party tenant in the schedule mentioned property, who is residing

SA No.447 of 2023

04.10.2023

with her family members since 2016. It is submitted that applicant had no prior knowledge regarding the mortgage created by second respondent in favour of first respondent and the default committed by the borrower. It is further submitted that applicant may not be in a position to vacate the premises immediately and prayed for granting some breathing time till 30.11.2023 to find an alternate suitable accommodation.

¶24

Copy of memo is sent to other side by post and applicant had furnished postal receipts evidencing the same.

¶25

Memo filed on behalf of applicant is taken on file. As applicant herself had undertaken to vacate the premises before 30.11.2023, nothing survives for adjudication in this SA.

¶26

In the result, this SA is dismissed, however without costs. Applicant is permitted to vacate the premises by or before 30.11.2023 and hand over vacant physical possession to first respondent. Liberty be with first respondent to proceed further in accordance to law beyond 30.11.2023, if vacant possession is not handed over to them by applicant by that date.

¶27

Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶28

With the above observations, this SA stands disposed.

SA No.447 of 2023

04.10.2023

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

¶33

guidelines.

¶34

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 04^th day of October, 2023)

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

MKaleeswari v. Bajaj Finance limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MKaleeswari v. Bajaj Finance 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

Ganapathy Ram S versus Sundaram Finance Limited

Mr B Arumugam Son of Balasundaram versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Mrs S Rajeswari versus Union Bank of India

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Kamalesh Proprietor of Ms Ppraneel Carriers

B Leelawaathy versus Bajaj Finance limited

Bank of Baroda versus Mradulla Gandhi