Dismissed

Cholamandalam Investment Finance Company Limited v. Yes Bank

DRT14 Jun 2023SA/64/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of an SARFAESI application filed by a prior mortgagee lender challenging the recovery actions of a subsequent mortgagee bank. Due to the bank's failure to file counter-arguments despite granted time, the Tribunal set aside the bank's recovery measures while recognizing the possibility of the bank's second charge if documented.

What did the court decide?

Actions of first respondent bank against the immovable property in the SA schedule set aside. Applicant permitted to proceed.

Cholamandalam Investment Finance Company Limited… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A.64 of 2023 14.06.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 14^th day of June, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 64 of 2023

¶7

The Authorised Officer, M/s.Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Limited, “Dare House”, 1^st Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001. ….Applicant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Authorised Officer, Yes Bank Limited, Plot No.14, 3^rd Main Road, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 050.

¶10

Mr.K.Mohanraj, No.1/118, Pazhandi Amman Koil Street, Moovarasampettai, Madipakkam, Chennai – 600 091.

¶11

Mr.V.Kumaresan, No.1/118, Pazhandi Amman Koil Street, Moovarasampettai, Madipakkam, Chennai – 600 091. ….Respondents

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.K.J.Parthasarathy. Counsel for 1^st Respondent : M/s.T.K.M.Sai Krishnan. None for respondents 2 and 3

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This SA is filed by applicant institution challenging the measures initiated by first respondent bank under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act before Ld. CJM, Chengalpat in

¶16

¶17

S.A.64 of 2023 14.06.2023

¶18

C.M.P. No. 2177 of 2022 dated 17.06.2022 for recovery of a sum of Rs.31,70,327.07p from respondents 2 and 3.

¶19

Heard Ld. counsel for applicant and representative counsel for first respondent. It is the case of applicant that they had a prior mortgage over the schedule mentioned property by virtue of mortgage deed executed in their favour by the borrower for loan facilities utilised. Ld. Counsel submits that as their mortgage is prior in time i.e., 28.03.2019 and that the mortgage in favour of first respondent bank is at a much later point of time i.e., 31.10.2019 and also their loan agreement is dated 28.02.2019 while the loan agreement of first respondent bank is dated 22.10.2019, it is contended that the loan of applicant institution pre-dates the loan granted by first respondent bank and therefore the actions of first respondent bank shall either have to be merged with the actions of the applicant institution or be set aside.

¶20

However, since first respondent bank did not file any counter or typed set of documents, despite availing substantial time, today came up with a memo along with an Assignment Deed, submitting therein that debt is assigned to yet another financial institution and that they may be permitted to incorporate the assignee in the litigation and then seek some more time for filing counter and typed set of documents.

¶21

In the circumstances, as first respondent bank has already availed substantial time, no further time can be contemplated.

¶22

Consequently, actions of first respondent bank against the immovable property mentioned in the SA schedule are hereby set aside. Applicant institution is permitted to

¶23

¶24

S.A.64 of 2023 14.06.2023

¶25

proceed further in accordance to law, while it may recognise the second charge in favour of first respondent, if first respondent is able to establish their mortgage by furnishing documents, atleast to the applicant institution, if not to this Tribunal, to continue their second charge.

¶26

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

¶27

With the above observations, this SA stands disposed.

¶28

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

¶29

guidelines.

¶30

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 14^th day of June, 2023)

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Cholamandalam Investment Finance Company Limited v. Yes Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cholamandalam Investment Finance Company Limited v. Yes 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

Canara Bank versus Total Supply Chain And Food Solution Pvt. Ltd. And Four Others

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S Caris Pure Processing Company Pvt. Ltd.

Mrs Vijay Vani Panati versus The Authourised Officer Piramal Capital Housing Finance Limited

Canara Bank versus Anbalagan

Rr Manohar versus PNB Housing Finance Limited

M s Venishaa Foundations versus Canara Bank