Dismissed

R Suriyakishore v. Bajaj Finance Ltd.

DRT3 Feb 2023SA/469/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the SARFAESI Application filed by the applicant challenging Section 14 recovery measures. The tribunal held that the applicant failed to comply with interim orders and cost imposition, acting with no bona fides and merely to stall recovery, resulting in dismissal for default.

What did the court decide?

SARFAESI Application dismissed for default and non-prosecution without costs; interim order vacated; all pending IAs closed.

R Suriyakishore versus Bajaj Finance Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 469 of 2022 03.02.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 03^rd day of February, 2023

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶6

Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 469 of 2022

¶8

Mr.Suriya Kishore, Plot No.83, Ragavendra Avenue, Thirumangai Mannan Street, Chitlapakkam, Chennai – 600 064. …Applicant Vs.

¶9

Bajaj Finance Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Officer, Mr.M.Varadaraj, Unit No.209 & 210, 2^nd Floor, Alphas Wing, Beta Wing, Raheja Towers, 177, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ….Respondent

¶10

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶11

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. J.Kamaraj. Counsel for Respondent : M/s. A.Damodaran

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This SA is filed challenging the measures initiated by respondent bank under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act before Ld. CJM, Chengalpet in C.M.P. No. 8798 of 2022 dated 11.10.2022 for recovery of a sum of Rs.46,04,530/-.

¶14

Counter and typed set of documents filed on behalf of respondent institution

¶15

today before the Registry vide SR No.1449 after sending copy of same to applicant’s counsel by post. It is submitted by Ld. counsel for respondent bank during last hearing

¶16

¶17

S.A. 469 of 2022 03.02.2023

¶18

on 30.12.2022 that applicant did not comply with any of the conditional order imposed by this Tribunal and that the interim order has been obtained subsequent to taking physical possession of the property by respondent bank, thereby applicant had suppressed the material facts and Ld. counsel for respondent prayed for permitting respondent to proceed further.

¶19

Perused records. As applicant did not comply either with the interim order of this Tribunal or with the order of costs imposed, there are no bonafides on the part of applicant and that the present SA is filed only to stall the recovery process of respondent institution and hence liable to be dismissed.

¶20

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

¶21

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶22

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

¶23

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 03^rd day of February, 2023)

¶24

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

R Suriyakishore v. Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Suriyakishore v. Bajaj Finance Ltd.

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

Mr Rameez Raja versus M s Encore Assest Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd.

M Saravanan versus Canara Bank

State Bank of India versus Srinivasan

C Subramanian versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

M s Bright Enterprises versus Indian Bank

C Janarthanan versus Union Bank of India