Dismissed

Jayanthi v. Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction And Securitisation Company Ltd.

DRT7 Feb 2024SA/4/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the SARFAESI application filed by a third party tenant challenging collection measures. The court held the applicant approached the Tribunal without clean hands, citing contradictions in her affidavit regarding the property floors and her prior dismissal in a similar challenge, leading to the dismissal of the application.

What did the court decide?

The SARFAESI application was dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to the respondent institution. All interim orders stood vacated.

Jayanthi versus Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction And… — Service and Employment | DRT (2024)

SA No. 4 of 2024

07.02.2024

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 07^th day of February, 2024

¶6

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SARFAESI APPLICATION No.4 of 2024

¶9

Mrs. Jayanthi, W/o. Nareshkumar, B.3, Jains Windsor court, No.6/22, New Giri Road, T.Nagar, Chennai- 600 017. ….Applicants

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1. The Authorized Officer, Pridhivi Asset Reconstruction, And Securitisation Company Ltd., D. No.1-55, Raja Praasadamu, 4^th Floor, Wing-1, Plot.6, 61& 6B, Masjid Banda Road, Kondapur, Hyderabad-500 084.

¶12

2. Mrs. Sudha Mahendra, W/o. Mr. Y.Gee Mahendra, B-3, Jains Windsor Court, No.6/22, New Giri Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. …Respondents

¶13

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. B.M. Santha Ram Counsel for 1^st Respondent : M/S. Surya Teja SS Nalla None for 2^nd respondent

¶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 Crl.M.P. No.32027/2022 dated 26.04.2023, for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,95,07,586/-.

SA No. 4 of 2024

07.02.2024

Heard Ld. Counsels appearing for respective parties. It is the case of the applicant that she is a tenant having entered into tenancy agreement in 2023 with borrower and therefore claim to vacate the premises and hand over the same by or before 01.03.2024. Accordingly, prayed to allow the SA.

¶22

However, in abundant caution, this Tribunal had issued notice to respondent financial institution, who had put appearance through their counsel.

¶23

Ld. counsel for respondent submits that the actions of the applicant approaching this Tribunal are not by fair means and that borrower had already suffered an order of dismissal in her challenge to the possession notice. Notwithstanding the order obtained from this Tribunal, borrower has filed yet another SA challenging the Ld.CMM order, now pending before DRT-II and scheduled to March, 2024 for final order. The alleged lease agreement of January, 2023 is subsequent to the mortgage created by the borrower as early as in 2013 and hence is hit by the provisions of Section 13, which does not entitle the borrower to lease the property without the express consent of secured creditor.

¶24

Affidavit of undertaking filed on behalf of applicant is also deceptive to say the least, since the mortgaged property is situated in first floor, while they state that they intend to vacate the ground floor premises, which again is sowing seeds for yet another round of litigation. Ld. counsel also brought it to the notice of this Tribunal that a wrong notice is served upon them stating that matter is posted on 10.01.2024 for appearance of respondent, while there was no such listing of this matter on 10.01.2024.

SA No. 4 of 2024

07.02.2024

In the circumstances, as applicant has not approached this Tribunal with clean hands, there are no merits in the present SA, as a tenant for him to continue in possession of property and hence SA is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to respondent institution.

¶29

Interim order, if any, granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all

¶30

other IAs, if any, pending stand closed.

¶31

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶32

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

¶33

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced in open Court, on this the 07^th day of February, 2024)

¶34

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

Jayanthi v. Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction And Securitisation Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayanthi v. Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction And Securitisation Company 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

Marg Ltd. versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus Soundaranayaki

Bank of Baroda versus Padma Shekar

Mr T Senthilkumaran versus Bank of Baroda

Roche S versus The a O Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Krishnamurthy