Eliza v. Orix Leasing
Case brief
What is this about?
DRT allowed an application challenging Section 14 recovery measures due to procedural irregularities in serving the possession notice. The applicant deposited Rs. 10 Lakhs and agreed to settle within 90 days. Further action stayed pending default beyond this period.
What did the court decide?
SA allowed; interim order vacated; pending IAs closed; liberty to proceed if default continues beyond 90 days.
What the court decided
1
S.A. 479 of 2022 04.05.2023
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 04th day of May, 2023
Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer
SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 479 of 2022
1. Eliza
Proprietrix M/s.Eliza Provision Store No.244, Poonamallee Road Maduravayal Chennai – 600 095
2. Y.Neethyarajan
S/o. R.Eyappan Door No.1, First Cross Street Kambar Nagar Chennai – 600 095
3. N.Eliza
W/o. Neethyrajan Door No.1, First Cross Street Kambar Nagar Chennai – 600 095 ….Applicants Vs.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal should allow the SARFAESI Application challenging the recovery measures taken by the financial institution under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
Whether the Respondent followed the due procedure under the law while issuing the possession notice and seeking assistance from the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Whether the Applicants have been served properly with the possession notice and if default continues beyond 90 days from the order date.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Eliza
- petitioner
Y.Neethyarajan
- petitioner
N.Eliza
- respondent
The Authorised Officer M/s.Orix Leasing & Financial Services India Ltd
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court