Dismissed

Hindustan Foods Limited Leather Division v. City Union Bank Limited

DRT14 Jun 2024SA/303/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal held that a SARFAESI application filed by a third party in possession, challenging an order for possession granted to a secured creditor, was not maintainable per HemarajRatnakar vs. HDFC Bank. The applicant was permitted time to vacate but directed to deliver possession and pay costs.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to quit and deliver vacant possession by 31.07.2024 after filing undertaking and paying Rs. 2.5 lakhs costs and mesne profits; failure to deposit within 10 days permits enforcement of warran

Hindustan Foods Limited Leather Division versus City Union… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

SA No.303 of 2024

14.06.2024

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 14^th day of June, 2024

¶6

Present: SHRI A. S. JAYACHANDRA Presiding Officer (In–charge)

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No.303 of 2024

¶8

Hindustan Foods Limited [Leather Division] Represented by its Authorized Representative Mr. R. Selvavinayagam Having its Factory at; Cadastre Nos. 165, 166 & 167 Ousudu Revenue Village Poraiyur, Poraiyur, Villianur Commune, Pondicherry – 605 110.

¶9

Also at Having its Registered Office at Unit, Level 2, Centrium, Phoenix Market City 15 LBS Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070.

¶10

…..Applicant

¶11

Vs-

¶12

1. City Union Bank Limited Through its General Manager/ Authorized Officer Credit Recovery and Management Department “NARAYANA”, Administrative Office No.24- B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumabakonam – 612 001.

¶13

Also at:

¶14

City Union Bank Limited Through its General Manager/ Authorized Officer No.23, Pillayar Koil Street, Near Tiruvateeswarara Temple, Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005.

¶15

2. M/s. UFX Ventures Private Limited

¶16

Rep. by its Director, Mr. Usman Faheed 33/1, Wallajah Road, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 002.

3. Mr. Usman Faheed,

SA No.303 of 2024

14.06.2024

No.71, 1^st Avenue, 1^st Cross Street, Vettuvankeni, ECR Road, Chennai – 600 041. … Respondents

¶22

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶23

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Annie Singh Counsel for Respondent : M/s. Ananda Gomathy

¶24

PROCEEDINGS DATED 14.06.2024

¶25

IA/885/24 (Emergent hearing)

¶26

Heard on the IA and the same is allowed.

¶27

IA/886/24 (Stay Petition)

¶28

Heard the Learned counsel for the applicant. The orders of the Learned CJM, Puducherry dated 07.05.2024 in Crl.MP No.2171 of 2024 is challenged.

¶29

The applicant is neither the borrower nor the guarantor. The applicant claims to be in the possession of the property to which the Learned CJM had passed an order in favour of the respondent bank to take possession of the property mortgaged by the borrowers and guarantors who are in due of a sum of Rs.21,48,20,215. This property is collateral security as is found the orders of the Learned CJM and the defendant bank had complied the requirements of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. One Advocate Commissioner is also appointed to take possession of the property by the Ld. CJM.

¶30

The Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant had filed an affidavit to the effect that some time may be granted to re-locate the applicant and necessary arrangements will be made to shift and hand over the possession. In the affidavit of the AR of the applicant it is stated that two months’ time may be given since the applicant is running a factory in the premises to which the orders of possession is passed.

SA No.303 of 2024

14.06.2024

The caveator had also filed an affidavit of the AR of the defendant bank opposing grant of time since the tenancy alleged is subsequent to the mortgage and the tenancy agreement is not registered. Symbolic possession was taken on 27.09.2021 and further the defendant prays for dismissal of the IA and the SA as well.

¶35

After hearing the Learned Counsel and further considering the law laid down in the HemarajRatnakar vs. HDFC Bank 2021 SCC 611 , the SA is not maintainable. Therefore, considering the affidavit filed by the applicant that it is ready to deliver the peaceful possession of the premises, the present SA stands disposed of by the following

¶36

ORDER

¶37

SA stands dismissed as not maintainable. However, the applicant is directed to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the premises in question on or before 31.07.2024 after filing an undertaking by way of affidavit to this effect.

¶38

The applicant shall also pay a lump sum amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs towards the cost of this petition and the mesne profits for the interim period.

¶39

It is also made clear that if the sum is not deposited within 10 days with the defendant bank and proper affidavit is not filed, the defendant bank would be at liberty to enforce the warrants already issued by the Learned CJM.

¶40

Thus, the SA stands disposed of and all the pending IAs are closed. A copy of this order be communicated to the parties.

¶41

Sd/(A. S. JAYACHANDRA) PRESIDING OFFICER (In-charge)

Hindustan Foods Limited Leather Division v. City Union Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hindustan Foods Limited Leather Division v. City Union Bank 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

Indian Bank versus Ms Shree Ganesh Bhojnalaya

Bank of Baroda versus M/S M R Enterprises and Others

Sri Mani Sankar Das And Anr. versus Idbi Bank

Union Bank of India versus M/S Aarti Associates

Ms Southern Cashew Exporters versus Union Bank of India

Uco Bank versus Smt.Mauram Rajitha