Disposed

Radhika R v. Indian Overseas Bank

DRT21 Feb 2024SA/330/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's SARFAESI application. Conceding she was an unregistered tenant with no locus to challenge recovery actions, the court permitted her voluntary vacation of premises by 15.04.2024, permitting acknowledgment of vacant possession to the bank otherwise to proceed further.

What did the court decide?

Applicant permitted to vacate premises voluntarily by 15.04.2024 and hand over vacant possession to the first respondent bank under due acknowledgement.

Radhika R versus Indian Overseas Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

SA No. 330 of 2023

21.02.2024

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 21^st day of February, 2024

¶6

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 330 of 2023

¶9

Ms. Radhika, D/O Ravi, residing at Villa ‘C’ Plot No. 18, 19, and 20 Bharathi Avenue, Kottiwakkam, Chennai 41.

¶10

….Applicant

¶11

-Vs-

¶12

Indian Overseas Bank retail Mart rep by Its, Authorized Officer, Purasawalkam branch, 15, Hunters Road, Purasawalkam, Chennai 112.

¶13

K. R. Gandhi, S/o Ramachandran, B5, Kumaran Paradise, Vetrivel Nagar, 2^nd Street Extn, Kolathur, Chennai 99.

¶14

G. Sudha, W/o K.R. Gandhi, B5, Kumaran Paradise, Vetrivel Nagar, 2^nd Street Extn, Kolathur, Chennai 99. …Respondents

¶15

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶16

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Selvi George Counsel for Respondent : M/s. Ananda Gomathy

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This SA is filed challenging the possession notice dated 05.05.2023 issued by

¶19

respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,25,06,694.62p

SA No. 330 of 2023

21.02.2024

Ld. counsel for applicant conceded that applicant is an unregistered tenant having extended a sum of Rs.20 lakhs to the owners who are arrayed as Respondents 2 and 3. It is their further case that respondent 2 and 3 are making wrongful allegations of having returned the money, which is not true and that they are liable for discharge of the same. Applicant intends to prosecute her remedy before appropriate forum.

¶24

Ld. counsel also had conceded that they cannot raise any objections to the SARFAESI actions of the first respondent bank in the course of recovery of their dues from 2^nd and 3^rd respondents, who had mortgaged the schedule mentioned immovable property by creating security interest thereupon.

¶25

Whereas, Ld. counsel for respondent bank had filed its counter and typed set of documents evidencing their action, copies of which are served on the Ld. counsel for applicant.

¶26

Ld. counsel for applicant fairly concedes that applicant has no locus to contend upon the SARFAESI actions but can only pray that they may be permitted reasonable time to vacate the secured assets and hand over the same to 1^st respondent herein who had initiated the subject impugned possession notice.

¶27

In the circumstances, as applicant has accepted to vacate the premises themselves voluntarily, they are permitted to do so by or before 15.04.2024 and hand over the vacant possession to the first respondent herein under due acknowledgement, failing which, respondent bank will be entitled to proceed further in accordance to law,

SA No. 330 of 2023

21.02.2024

since Ld. Counsel for respondent bank has admitted that the impugned possession

¶32

notice is only symbolic possession and are yet to take steps for physical possession.

¶33

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

¶34

With the above directions, SA stands disposed.

¶35

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

¶36

guidelines.

¶37

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced in open court on this the 21^st day of February, 2024)

¶38

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

Radhika R v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhika R v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Corporation Bank versus Marigot Agro Private Limited

Marg Limited versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company

V Anandaselvan versus Indian Bank

M s Richros Builders versus Uco Bank

Union Bank of India versus G Madhan Raj

Bank of India versus Jaidev Impex