Dismissed

Gurudev Educational and Charitable Trust v. Auxilo Finserve Private Limited

DRT22 Apr 2024SA/292/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's application to set aside a CJM order allowing possession. The court held the bank's notices were valid, rejected claims of agricultural land use, noted lack of proof under the state school regulation act, and declared the application illegal.

What did the court decide?

The SARFAESI Application (SA No.292/2023) is dismissed; all pending Interim Applications are closed; No costs.

Gurudev Educational and Charitable Trust versus… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

SA No.292/2023

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT MADURAI

¶3

DATED THIS 22^nd DAY OF APRIL, 2024 PRESENT: SEEMA SINHA

¶4

[PR. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

SA No.292/2023

¶6

Between

¶7

M/s. Gurudev Educational and Charitable Trust, Rep by its Authorized Signatory, the Managing Trustee, R. Gnanasekeran,S/o. Rasuthevar, and Also M/s. Gurudev Matriculation School, Rep by its Authorized Signatory, The Correspondent, R. Gnanasekaran,S/o. Rasuthevar, No. 106/3, Sembar, Near Madurai Main Road, Boothipuram,Madurai District 625 532. --- Applicant

¶8

And

¶9

AuxiloFinserve Private Limited, Rep by its Regional Authorized Officer, J. Gomes, Branch Office at Orchid Center First Floor, 71, Kannappan Street, Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai,Chennai-29. --- Defendant-1

¶10

Appearance of Advocates: M/s W. Pamelin ---- Counsel for the Applicant M/s A. Sivasubramanian ---- Counsel for the Defendant

¶11

This Application was heard in the presence of Shri Mr. W. Pamelin, Counsel for the Applicant and Shri A. Sivasubramanian, Counsel for the Defendant and upon hearing the arguments of both side Counsels and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:

pg. 1

SA No.292/2023

ORDER

This Application has been filed under Section 17(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 by the Applicants praying to set aside the Learned CJM order passed in Cr.M.P. No.296/2023 dated 12.05.2023 and further its connected proceedings under SARFAESI Act by the Defendant.

¶16

The brief averments of the Application filed by the Applicant are as follows:-

¶17

(a) Applicant is running a Matriculation in the Usilampatti Vicinity of Madurai named Gurudev Matriculation School. In order to develop the basic infrastructure of the school the applicant mortgaged the schedule mentioned properties of the school as a collateral security and obtained a loan from the financial institution and all along remitting the EMI without default regularly till November 2022. Further, it is informed that on 30.09.2019 an amount of Rs.2,20,16,575/- was obtained as loan from the financial institution through a loan agreement No. 400319006976. It is further submitted that an Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme was unveiled as a part of comprehensive package announced by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India on 13.05.2020 to aid eligible business enterprises/ Micro Small and Medium industries (MSMEs) sector in view of the global lockdown due to COVID-19 pandemic and in furtherance to the special scheme of ECLGS was granted to the Applicants school loan account bearing loan account number 400319011336, 40031901312125, 400319012563 and 400319019585 and an amount of Rs.9,82,436/-, 14,84,544/-, Rs.19,20,000 and Rs.22,00,000 were credited on 16.09.2020, 25.02.2021, 26.05.2021 and 23.11.2021 respectively.

¶18

(b) Applicant further submitted that, he has continuously paid the EMI’s regularly eventhough, in the month of November 2022 loan was declared as Non Performing Asset, and the respondent

¶19

pg. 2

¶20

SA No.292/2023

¶21

sent a notice for a default of Rs.30,000,000/-. Thereafter, the Applicant has paid Rs.50 lakhs on various dates and requested the Defendant institution to release the loan account from NPA but the respondent financial agency, after receiving the amount had failed to do so and it is pertinent to point out that an EMI for the month of May has been deducted without regularizing the loan.

¶22

(c) Further, Applicant submitted that, even after receipt of the Rs.50 lakhs,a symbolic possession notice was issued on 16.03.2023. Applicant again requested the Defendant Bank, not to take any coercive action and requested to furnish the balance details, but the respondents were keen on getting the school property and using dilatory tactics and evading from reply.

¶23

The Applicant has prayed to set-asideCJM order passed in Cr.MP No.296/2023 dated 12.05.2023 on the following Grounds:-

¶24

i) The action of the respondent is in violation of principal of natural justice and it is violation of the expanded horizon of right to life as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶25

ii) After receipt of 13(2) notice, an amount of Rs.50 lakh was paid by the Applicant and the EMI was also paid till the month of May, 2023 to safeguard the school and scheduled properties.Further, the applicant is ready to pay any conditional order and was also taking all steps to settle the outstanding dues.

¶26

iii) The properties were undervalued and have no option other than contemplating extreme steps. The action of the respondents are violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution and hence liable for interference by this Hon’ble Court.

¶27

iv) The Applicant is ready with the payment of the instalment but the respondent is keen on taking the property.

¶28

v) It is submitted that due to sudden outbreak of COVID-19 menace which intervened from 20.02.2020 till the end of the year 2021, all the educational institutions have been completely closed and even though there was no

¶29

pg. 3

¶30

SA No.292/2023

¶31

income.However, the faculty as well as the Non teaching staff had to be paid their monthly emoluments which was paid with great difficulty such payments were made to provide succor and sustenance to them. Hence there were some delays in remitting the monthly dues.

¶32

vi) But unfortunately, the loan was declared as Non Performing Asset and attachment of the property under The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after called as SARFAESI Act) were initiated. However, the property is not a secured asset as contemplated in SARFAESI Act, since there is a statutory violation while execution of mortgage of the school property. The respondents had mortgaged the property but then they have no locus – standi to initiate SARFAESI proceedings against the private schools and its properties. They are protected by THE TAMILNADU RECOGNISED PRIVATE SCHOOLS REGULATION ACT 1973. Wherein chapter VI controls by “Controls of Private School” and Section 30 and 31 states as follows:

¶33

30. Educational agency to send list of properties . – The educational agency shall on or before the prescribed date in each year, furnish to the competent authority a statement (with such particulars as may be prescribed) of every –

¶34

(a) movable property of not less than such value as may be prescribed; and

¶35

(b) immovable property of the private school.

¶36

31. Restriction on alienation of property of private school. –

¶37

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any deed, document or instrument having effect by virtue of such other law – (a) no property of a private school shall except with the previous permission in writing of the competent authority, be transferred by way of sale, exchange, mortgage, charge, pledge, lease, gift or any other manner whatsoever; and

¶38

(b) if any such property is transferred without such permission, the transfer shall be null and void.

¶39

pg. 4

¶40

SA No.292/2023

¶41

Thus the above mortgage is null and void as per the above act, since neither the management nor the respondents have obtained prior permission from the educational department and its competent authority. Hence the mortgage itself is null and void.

¶42

vii) As such the mortgage is the basic vital document to show that property is a secured asset, when the mortgage itself null and void, and the property is not the secured asset as per Section 2(1)(zc), the respondent has No Locus-standii to initiate SARFAESI proceeding.The initiation of SARFAESI proceeding against, the rights of school, not only the management, but the school which includes students teaching and non teaching staffs also whose rights are also protected by the act of the TamilnaduRecognized Private Schools Regulation Act 1973. Further, Section 19 of the SARFAESI Act protects the right of the borrower.

¶43

viii) If the financial institution / bank has illegally issuedthe notice and misused the power, as contemplated in the SARFAESI ACT, they are supposed to give adequate compensation under Sec-19 of the SARFAESI ACT.

¶44

ix) Further at the time of granting license to run a Matriculation School, sufficient space with reference to yardstick as well as buildings must be available and at no point of time, the building or the space earmarked for play ground must be mortgaged by putting the children into trouble.

¶45

x) By instigating above reasons, the SARFAESI Act cannot be invoked and re-schedule the loan amount and the cost and expenses cannot be part and parcel of this loan amount, since the property is not secured asset.

¶46

pg. 5

¶47

SA No.292/2023

¶48

Apart from that, Applicant raised the following grounds also:

¶49

xi) The Defendant / Private financial creditor is not an approved one, by Reserve Bank of India for invoking.

¶50

xii) The Possession Notice was not served to all the parties, no paper publication was effected in Newspapers and not affixed in the conspicuous part of the premises.

¶51

xiii) The Defendant has not made demarcation of land and building and agricultural land situated thereon.

¶52

xiv) The Applicant School is governed by the provisions of The Tamilnadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act 2019 and by the same the whole mortgage is null and void.

¶53

xv) The Defendant has failed to see that the property is a Trust and permission has to be obtained by the Jurisdictional Court before mortgage or to sell the property.

¶54

xvi) The Defendant can file only a money suit for recovery of money and he cannot invoke the provisions of the SARFAESI Act since prima facie the mortgage is void.

¶55

xvii) The Applicant is doing agricultural activities in part of land so the SARFAESI Act will not be applicable.

¶56

xviii) The Defendant has failed to consider that the applicant has paid Rs.1,95,38,661/- from 30.9.2019 to 23.11.2021 as EMI.

¶57

Applicant sought for the following Reliefs also:-

¶58

In view of the facts and grounds above, the Applicant prays for the following reliefs:

¶59

i) The physical possession relating to the property scheduled hereunder is not as contemplated under the Act as such the Defendant is not entitled to proceed further under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002. Hence, the impugned orders passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in Cr.M.P.No.296/2023 dated 12.05.2023 is liable to be quashed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and nullity.

¶60

ii) The impugned orders passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in Cr.M.P. No 296/2023 dated 12.05.2023 is

¶61

pg. 6

¶62

SA No.292/2023

¶63

not in conformity with security interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, hence liable to be declared as invalid.

¶64

iii) If the impugned orders passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in CrM.P.No.296/2023 dated 12.05.2023 is permitted to be effected such physical possession is against law causing injustice to the Applicant. The Applicant is ready to clear his liability by rescheduling the repayment or through OTS and to direct the Defendant Bank for OTS.

¶65

Schedule of Properties:

¶66

Schedule 1: All that piece and parcel of the property at Poothipuram Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District comprised in S.No.106/3C measuring 2 Acres and 10 cents and S.No.106/3E3 measuring 23.25 cents in all totally admeasuring 2 Acres 33.25 and 2 cents together with the building thereon with amenities situated within the sub-registration district of usilampatti and Registration District of Periakulam. Owned by Gunasekaran R and Athistalakshmi G for S.No.106/3C.

¶67

Bounded by:

¶68

North – land of Mokkasamy

¶69

South – Land of Vattakundu Son

¶70

East – Ponnangan land

¶71

West – Land of Periyamayan land of chandrasekaran, Kuppanampattipalsamy of Ramalingam and Saha, MuthuThevar and Kubendran property and Veerasingam property

¶72

For S.No.106/3E3 bounded by:

¶73

North – Property of Sahadevan South-North Road

¶74

South- Property of Rajendran East – South North Road

¶75

West – Property of Kurumban and Suriyaprabha

¶76

pg. 7

¶77

SA No.292/2023

¶78

(B) All that piece and parcel of the property (vacant land) at Mekkilapatti village, usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District comprised in S.No.116/7B, Patta No.1195 measuring 94 cents or 0.38.0 hectares situated within the limits of Usilampatti Panchayat Union, situated withint the SubRegistration District of Usilampatti and Registration District of Periyakulam owned by Gnanasekaran.R.

¶79

Bounded by

¶80

North – Land of Dhanalakshmi and Ochathevar

¶81

South – AdhiThravidarNatham, North side of east west road West – AdhiThravidarNatham, North side of east west road

¶82

East – Land of Dhanalakshm

¶83

Typed Set of Papers filed by the Applicant

¶84

SI.No.	Date	Description
1.	22.11.2022	Demand Notice
2.	16.03.2023	Possession Notice
3.	12.05.2023	Impugned Orders passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in Cr.M.P.No.296/2023
4.	10.06.2023	Advocate Commissioner Notice
5.	05.08.2016	Notification issued by Ministry of Finance
6.	16.12.2023	Certificate issued by VAO
7.		Patta No.1309
8.		Patta No.6462

¶85

2. On the other hand, the defendant Bank appeared and filed their Reply Statement /Written Arguments along with type set of paper.

¶86

(a) The defendant bank informed that, after scrutinizing the documents submitted by the applicant with regard to their financial capacities, they have financed the secured loan for a

¶87

pg. 8

¶88

SA No.292/2023

¶89

sum of Rs.2,29,16,575 vide loan account No:400319006976 . Further the defendant sanctioned and disbursed the loan under Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme (“ECLGS”) which was unveiled as part of comprehensive package announced by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India on 13.05.2020, to aid eligible Business Enterprises/Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises(MSMEs) sector in view of the economic distress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Subsequent to the same, at the request of the defendant, financial assistance under the said special scheme of ECLGS was granted to applicant and they had sanctioned additional loan for a sum Rs.9,82,436 /- in vide loan account No:400319011336 and 2^nd Additional loan for a sum Rs.14,84,544 /- in vide loan account No:400319012125 and 3^rd Additional loan for a sum Rs.19,20,000 /- in vide loan account No:400319012563 and 4^th Additional loan for a sum Rs.22,00,000 /- in vide loan account No:400319019585 . The applicant’s repayment pattern was inconsistent, leading to the classification of their account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 14.11.2022 within the meaning of section 2(o) of the Act in accordance with directions/guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The applicant is willful & chronic defaulter and defendant bank issued 13(4) possession notice on 16.03.2023. However, the Petitioner had not made any payment to the loan account.

¶90

(b) Further, it is submitted that only after duly serving the notices under section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act to the applicant and even after receiving the same, the applicant failed to pay the outstanding dues. Hence the defendant bank filed petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai in Cr.M.P.No.296 of 2023 and the same was ordered on 12.05.2023 and Advocate Commissioner was appointed for taking possession. The applicant has stalled the SARFAESI proceedings by approaching the Hon’ble High Court and this Hon’ble Forum and obtained conditional interim order however failed to comply the same. The details of the same as follows:-

¶91

pg. 9

¶92

SA No.292/2023

¶93

(i) Applicant filed WMP (MD) No.11310/2023 dated 18.06.23 before Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, challenging the possession notice and obtained the conditional order of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakh only) and same was not complied.

¶94

(ii) Applicant filed WP(MD)13402 of 2023 before Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court challenging the CJM order of Crl.MP No.296/2023 and withdrawn by the Applicant.

¶95

(iii) In DRT, Madurai Applicant obtained the conditional order for stay of CJM order vide IA No.1373/2023 dated 28.07.2023.

¶96

(iv) Applicant subsequently, obtained the extension of time for compliance of the conditional order for stay of CJM order vide IA No.1790/2023 dated 11.09.2023. Subsequent extension of payment petition IA No.2256/56 was rejected by DRT, Madurai. Subsequent petition of IA No.2257/23 also rejected by DRT, Madurai on 13.10.2023.

¶97

(v) WP (MD) No.25978/2023 dated 26.10.2023 before Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, for quashing order passed in dismissal of IA orders in SA No.292/23 dated 13.10.2023, subsequently withdrawn by Applicant with an undertaking of Rs.10 lakh and undertakes to file appeal before DRAT, Chennai. This order was also not complied.

¶98

(c) That the applicant had suppressed all the above facts. The applicant approached this Tribunal without clean hands and not complied any order. The intention of the applicant is to unnecessarily drag on the SARFAESI proceeding and it is pertinent to note that the applicant account was defaulted from November 2022 onwards and their intention is to evade from repayment of loan.Thetotal outstanding liability to be paid by the applicant to the defendant bank as on 18.12.2023 is Rs.2,83,43,812.80.

¶99

(d) That the applicant raised grounds in the main SARFAESI Application in SA 292 of 2023 is not sustainable and it is pertinent to note that the applicants running private school under The Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools Regulation

¶100

pg. 10

¶101

SA No.292/2023

¶102

Act 1973 enacted under the List II (State List) and the defendant is a Secured Creditor running under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 which is enacted by the parliament traceable to Entry 45 of the List I (Union List). By Virtue of the non – obstante Clause in Article 246 (1), the Apex court held that the Central legislation will prevail.The Dominant Legislation being the Parliamentary legislation, the provisions of the said Tamilnadu Recognized Private Schools Regulation Act 1973 would be invalid. Further section 35 of the SARFAESI Act provides over riding effect to the provisions contained in any law for the time being in force.

¶103

Typeset of papers filed by the Defendant Bank

¶104

TYPED SET OF PAPERS

¶105

S.	Date	Description of documents
No.
1.	03.05.2017	Certificate of Registration
2.	16.10.2019	Memorandum of deposit of title deeds in DocNo.4131of2019
3.	25.02.2020	Gazette Notification
4.	21.09.2020	Memorandum of deposit of title deeds in Doc No.3329 of 2020
5.	23.03.2021	Memorandum of deposit of title deeds in Doc No.1545 of 2021
6.	02.08.2021	Memorandum of deposit of title deeds in Doc No.3157 of 2021
7.	13.12.2021	Memorandum of deposit of title deeds in Doc No. 5244 of 2021
8.	22.11.2023	Demand notice along with postal receipt and Tracking Consignment
9.	07.12.2022	Section 13(2) demand notice published in Dinamani Tamil
10.	07.12.2022	Section 13(2) demand notice published in TheNew Indian ExpressEnglish
11.	16.03.2023	Possession notice
12.		Affixing of Possession notice Photographs
13.	18.03.2023	Section 13(4) possession notice published in Dinakaran Tamil
14.	18.03.2023	Section 13(4) possession notice published

¶106

pg. 11

¶107

SA No.292/2023

¶108

		in Business Standard English
15.		Section 14petition andaffidavit
16.	08.06.2023	Order in WP MP (md) 11310 of 2023 in WP 13402 of 2023
17.	18.07.2023	Order in WP (md) 13402 of 2023, 16841 of 2023
18.	28.07.2023	Order in IA 1373 of 2023 in SA 292 of 2023
19.	11.09.2023	Order in IA 1790 of 2023
20.	13.10.2023	Proceedings in SA 292 of 2023
21.	26.10.2023	WP (md) 25978 of 2023
22.	30.10.2023	List of NBFC registered with RBI
23.	18.12.2023	Statement of Account along with Foreclosure Statement in Ac. No.400319006976
24.	18.12.2023	Statement of Account along with Foreclosure Statement in Ac. No.400319011336
25.	18.12.2023	Statement of Account along with Foreclosure Statement in Ac. No.4003190012125
26.	18.12.2023	Statement of Account along with Foreclosure Statement in Ac. No.400319012563
27.	18.12.2023	Statement of Account along with Foreclosure Statement in Ac. No.400319019585
28.		E-Court Case History in CRMP 296 of 2023

¶109

In support of their claim, defendant bank referred the citation:

¶110

Hon’bleSupreme Court of India Judgement - In the matter of UCO Bank and another Vs DipakDebbarma and others - Civil Appeal No.11247 of 2016

¶111

Therefore, Defendant Institution prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the above SARFAESI Application in SA 292 of 2023 with costs and thus render justice.

¶112

pg. 12

¶113

SA No.292/2023

¶114

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed:

¶115

(i) Whether actions initiated by the Defendant Bank in respect of the schedule mentioned properties under the SARFAESI Act are illegal, void and contrary to the settle principle of Law?

¶116

(ii) Whether the applicant is entitled for relief as claimed for?

¶117

Having heard the parties and after going through the documents produced by the Applicant as well as the Defendants, I find the following:

¶118

(i) Applicant availed the financial assistance from the Defendant Institution for a sum of Rs.2,29,16,575 in vide loan account No:400319006976. Subsequently, in view of the economic distress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, applicant availed the financial assistance under the special scheme of ECLGS for a sum Rs.9,82,436/- in vide loan account No:400319011336 and 2^nd Additional loan for a sum Rs.14,84,544/- in vide loan account No:400319012125 and 3^rd Additional loan for a sum Rs.19,20,000/- in vide loan account No:400319012563 and 4^th Additional loan for a sum Rs.22,00,000/in vide loan account No:400319019585. Applicant deposited the title deeds as per the documents produced by the Defendant Institution [Typeset vide page nos.1 to 54]. Due to irregular payment made by the Applicant, their accounts were classified as NPA and subsequently the respondent issued the demand notice u/s 13(2) of the Act on 07.12.2022,which was received by the Applicant and also published in two news

¶119

pg. 13

¶120

SA No.292/2023

¶121

papers(Defendant-1 typeset page nos.55 to 67). Subsequently, R/I issued the possession notice dated 16.03.2023 vide Applicant typeset page nos.16 and same was published in the two news paper vide page nos.71 to 72. Hence, I am of the view that, Defendant Institution has issued the notices under section 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act, and no irregularity was found.

¶122

(ii) Further, Applicant approached the Hon’ble High Court challenging the possession notice dated 16.03.2023 and obtained the conditional order, but not complied with. This Tribunal also passed the interim order and stay, but not complied with. Again, Applicant went to Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court vide WP (MD) No.25978 of 2023 dated 26.10.2023 and obtained the conditional order of Rs.10 lakhs and applicant undertook to file appeal before Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai, but that conditional order was also not complied with, which clearly shows that applicant has no bonafide intention to pay the loan dues. Hence, I am of the view that, motive of the Applicant is to drag the proceedings.

¶123

(iii) Another ground of Applicant is that, the DefendantInstitution is not approved by Reserve Bank of India for invoking under SARFAESI Act. But, as per the documents RBI Central Office circular dated 30.10.2023 (D/I typeset page nos.114 & 114A) produced by the Defendant Institution. I find that, Defendant Institution is one of the approved Financial Institution under RBI and hence, this point is decided in favour of the Defendant Institution.

¶124

pg. 14

¶125

SA No.292/2023

¶126

(iv) Further, Applicant informed that, SARFAESI initiation will be in violation of Section 31(i) since the land which was mortgaged was an agricultural land and respondent cannot invoke the SARFAESI Act. Defendant Institution denied this allegation. On verification with documents filed by the Defendant Institution, mortgaged property was vacant land with building thereon. Moreover, applicant has not filed any valid documents for cultivation of agricultural activities. Hence, Applicant has not proved for violation of 31(i) of SARFAESI Act.

¶127

(v) Further, the Applicant has submitted that,though the Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, says that, the provision of the Act overrides the other Act, but Section 37 of the SARFAESI Act, says that, the provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the Companies Act, 1956, the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, the Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 or any other law for the time being in force. Hence, as per Section 37 of the SARFAESI Act, Bank is not entitled to proceed for recovery of loan amount for School property. Further, applicants are running private school under TamilnaduRecognised Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973 and as per section 30 and 31 of Act, there is restriction on the alienation of property of private school. Hence, Bank is not empowered to proceed under SARFAESI Act for recovery of loan under SARFAESI Act. I also perused the Section 31 of the Tamilnadu Recognized Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973 which says that, Application of other

¶128

pg. 15

¶129

SA No.292/2023

¶130

laws are barred and Section 4 of the Tamilnadu Recognized Schools Regulation Act says that, “New Private School to obtain permission: save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no person shall, without the permission of the competent authority and except in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in such permission, establish on or after the date of the commencement of this Act, any private school. I find that, the borrowers have availed the credit facilities and mortgaged the vacant land and building to the Defendant Institution. Further, borrowers accepted all the terms and conditions of the Defendant Institution at the time of availing loan. Now, Applicants taken different view that, mortgaged property is school property and which is barred under Tamilnadu Recognized Schools Regulation Act, 1973. But, Applicants have not produced any documental proof to show that, the M/s Gurudev Educational and Charitable Trust is coming under the purview of the Tamilnadu Recognized Schools Regulation Act, 1973. Further, they have not produced any documental proof to show the permission under section 4 of the Tamilnadu Recognized Schools Regulation Act, 1973. Hence, I come to the conclusion that, Defendant Intuition is entitled to proceed under SARFAESI Act.

¶131

(vi) Further the Applicant is challenging the CJM order passed in Cr.M.P. No.296/2023 dated 12.05.2023 praying to set aside the same and further its connected proceedings under SARFAESI Act by the Defendant. But, the Applicant has not pointed out any irregularity in the said CJM order. Hence, this point is also decided in favour of the Defendant Institution.

¶132

pg. 16

¶133

SA No.292/2023

¶134

In view of the aforesaid discussions, I come to the conclusion that, no prima facie case is made out by the Applicant against the Defendant Institution. No irregularity was found to set aside the Learned CJM order passed in Cr.M.P. No.296/2023 dated 12.05.2023. Issue Nos.1 & 2 are decided against the Applicant.

¶135

In the result the SA No.292/2023 is dismissed. No costs. All the pending IAs are closed.

¶136

(Dictated to Assistant, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 22^nd April, 2024.)

¶137

Sd/- (SEEMA SINHA) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶138

pg. 17

Gurudev Educational and Charitable Trust v. Auxilo Finserve Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurudev Educational and Charitable Trust v. Auxilo Finserve Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B Sriram versus State Bank of India

Mr.N.Venkatesh versus Bank of India

Mr.P.R.Manoharan Proprietor, M/s. Pr Coconut Traders versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

City Hospital versus State Bank of India

Shri Narayana Traders versus State Bank of India

R Natarajan versus Canara Bank