Dismissed

L Karthikeyan v. Idbi Bank

DRT3 Jan 2024SA/339/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed an application by a third-party tenant challenging SARFAESI recovery measures. While permitting a temporary stay for negotiation earlier, the Tribunal eventually directed the tenant to vacate and hand over the property to the bank by 20.01.2024 by 20.01.2024.

What did the court decide?

Applicant directed to hand over vacant physical possession of the subject property to the respondent bank by 20.01.2024.

L Karthikeyan versus Idbi Bank — Specific Performance | DRT (2024)

¶1

¶2

S.A.No.339 of 2023 03.01.2024

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 03^rd day of January, 2024

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 339 of 2023

¶7

Mr.L.Karthikeyan No.5/17, Flat No.B2 Srihari Apartments Delli Street, Periyar Nagar Pammal Chennai – 600 075

¶8

…. Applicant

¶9

¶10

1. The Authorized Officer IDBI Bank Limited Saidapet Branch 115, Anna Salai Opposite to Ashok Leyland Gotha Medu Housing Board Saidapet Chennai – 600 015

¶11

2. Mr.R.Srinivasan

¶12

No.5/17, Flat No.A1 1^st Floor, Srihari Apartments Delli Street, Periyar Nagar Pammal Kancheepuram – 600 075 …. Respondents

¶13

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : M/s R.Amudhan Counsel for 1^st respondent : M/s Shivakumar

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This SA is filed by third party tenant, challenging the measures initiated by respondent bank under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act before Ld. CJM, Chengalpattu in C.M.P.No.6889 of 2022 dated 06.08.2022, for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,32,84,392.19p.

¶17

¶18

S.A.No.339 of 2023 03.01.2024

¶19

This case was moved before the bench on 17.07.2023. It is the case of applicant that, he, being a tenant in the schedule property, was not aware of the pending litigation of recovery between the first respondent bank and second respondent / borrower. It is the further case of applicant that they have no objection to the SARFAESI actions of the first respondent bank and in fact would like to participate in the sale proceedings if at all the property is put up for sale, through public auction or private treaty as the case may be. Applicant had pleaded that they intend to negotiate for an amicable settlement with the first respondent bank and the borrowers so that they can continue their possession and in case, if they are not successful in their endeavours to settle the loan dues to the first respondent bank, they may be permitted to vacate the premises by granting two months time for the same.

¶20

Whereas respondent bank had filed its objections and stated that there is huge amount outstanding due for recovery and that it cannot wait for two months for tenants to vacate the premises, since they are already equipped with Ld. CJM order for taking physical possession of the property and therefore objected to the contentions of applicant.

¶21

Considering the submissions of both parties, on principles of equity and justice, this Tribunal passed an order permitting applicant to continue their stay upto 15.09.2023, while they were also permitted to explore the possibility of amicable negotiated settlement with the bank and the borrower either through public auction or through private treaty, if their talks do not fructify. Liberty was also granted to respondent bank to initiate further course of action for better realisation of their

¶22

¶23

S.A.No.339 of 2023 03.01.2024

¶24

outstanding due by proceeding further in accordance to law, if they could substantiate their SARFAESI actions.

¶25

Ld. counsel appearing for applicant submitted that they could not arrive at any negotiated settlement regarding purchase of property in terms of their undertaking before the Bench and prayed for passing necessary orders.

¶26

In the result, SA stands dismissed, however without costs. Applicant is directed to hand over vacant physical possession of the subject property to respondent bank by or before 20.01.2024 failing which respondent bank will be at liberty to proceed further in accordance to law. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶27

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶28

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

¶29

(Dictated to Steno (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 03^rd day of January, 2024)

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

L Karthikeyan v. Idbi Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L Karthikeyan v. Idbi 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

G Sudhakaran versus Iifl Home Finance Ltd.

Wayne Burt Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. versus LIC Housing Finance Limited

S K Jeevanantham versus Indian Bank

Anitha Venkatesan versus Union Bank of India

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S Janata Timber and Saw Mill

Venkatesan Gangadharan versus Union Bank of India