Dismissed

Origami Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Yes Bank

DRT6 Feb 2024SA/246/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought interim stay on the bank's notice to take possession of a restaurant property, citing active business and partial repayment promises. The court, noting unpaid dues exceeding Rs. 16 Crores and failure to deposit amounts despite opportunities, declined the interim relief.

What did the court decide?

Application for interim stay on the operation of the possession notice and to restrain taking possession of the property is declined.

Origami Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. versus Yes Bank — Landlord and Tenant | DRT (2024)

¶1

I.A. No. 268/2024

¶2

In S.A. No. 246 of 2023

¶3

06/02/2024	Ex. No.	Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. *Order in I.A. No. 268/2024* in *SA 246 of 2023* *Origami Hospitality Pvt Ltd Vs Yes* *Bank and Anr.*	Next date
		Advocate Sahil Memon i/b Link Legal appeared for the Applicant. Advocate Nainesh Amin a/w A. Jain and Saanchi Dhulla i/b Vesta Legal appeared for the Respondent No. 2 to 5 & 7. Advocate R. L. Motwani appeared for the Respondent No.1. Since the M.A. No.268/2024 is filed for the amendment in the present S.A., therefore, the same is hereby taken as I.A. I.A. No.268/2024 1. By way of the present I.A. the Applicant is praying to stay the operation and implementation of the impugned letter
		dt.02/02/2024 issued by the Court
		Commissioner, and restrain the Respondent No.1 from taking possession of the property i.e. Office No. G, 01B, admeasuring 4310 sq.ft. carpet area on Ground Floor in the building known as Parinee Crecenzo, Plot No. C 38 & 39, CTS No. 4207, G, Block, BKC, Internal Road, Mumbai – 400 051 (hereinafter

¶4

¶5

I.A. No. 268/2024 In S.A. No. 246 of 2023

¶6

referred as “property in question”) till final disposal of the present application. 2. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant contends that the Applicant is a leave & licence agreement holder and who is running a restaurant from property in question and he also submits that the Respondent is already issue NOC vide letter dt.26/04/2021, for the said leave & licence agreement and the Applicant is regularly paying the rent to the Bank directly thus, he submits that the rights of the Applicant may be protected and Respondent No.1 to be directed not to take the possession of the property in question. 3. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.2 who is also the Applicant of S.A. No. 178/2023 contends that the Respondent Bank has already received amount of more than Rs. 1 Crore and further he contends that the Borrower is still ready to deposit for Rs. 1 Crore by 14/02/2024 and further Rs.1 Crore in the March 2024, therefore, he submits that Respondent may be restrained to take possession of the property in question as leave and licence agreement has entered after the due consent of the Respondent Bank.

¶7

¶8

I.A. No. 268/2024 In S.A. No. 246 of 2023

¶9

He also submits that even otherwise the property in question is joint with the another property and the same could be divided only after taking permission from the MMRDA, thus he submits that the respondent may be restrained from taking the possession of the property in question.

¶10

Pre contra Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank strongly objected on the present I.A. and contends that earlier the Applicant and the borrower were allowed opportunity to deposit the dues of the Respondent Bank, however, they failed to deposit the dues, thus he submits that the Applicant is now not entitled for any relief.

¶11

He further submits that at the time of NOC for the leave and licence agreement Respondent Bank duly informed to the Applicant as well as borrower of the Bank that in case of default, the Respondent bank shall proceed to enforce its mortgage right on the property in question, thus, he submits that now default has occurred, therefore, the Respondent is duly proceed under SARFAESI Act 2002. Thus, the Applicant is not entitled for any relief.

¶12

¶13

I.A. No. 268/2024 In S.A. No. 246 of 2023

¶14

Considering the rival contention of the parties and gone through the record. 8. Admittedly, the dues in the impugned account are more than Rs. 16 Crores and the borrower of the bank has not deposited any amount despite opportunity. 9. It is important to note here that at the time of earlier possession notice, looking to the position of the property in question as same is a Restaurant and the said Restaurant is running after joining two properties including the present one thus, the Respondent Bank has allowed an opportunity to the parties to deposit the dues of the bank and the possession was not taken on the said date however, admittedly the borrower did not deposited any amount despite opportunity thus, looking to the conduct of the parties, prima facie , this is not a good case for interim relief and the same is hereby declined. P.O. DRT-I

¶15

SP/-Supp2

¶16

Origami Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Yes Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Origami Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. 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

Idbi Bank versus Mr Shivaji Madhav Jadhav

Ms Future Braands Ltd. versus Ifcl Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Gursewak

Basic Style Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Maharashtra

Punjab National Bank versus Ajay Mehra

State Bank of India versus R Purohit Space Developers Pvt. Ltd.