Allowed

S Medona v. Hdb Financial Service Limited

DRT31 Jul 2024SA/490/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal held the SARFAESI application maintainable despite prior case law, ordering the bank to defer possession until September 30, 2024, provided the applicant files an undertaking to vacate the premises.

What did the court decide?

Deferral of possession until 30.09.2024 conditional on filing an undertaking to quit and deliver vacant possession.

S Medona versus Hdb Financial Service Limited — Landlord and Tenant | DRT (2024)

¶1

SA No. 490 of 2024

¶2

31.07.2024

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 31^st day of July, 2024

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No.490 of 2024

¶7

Mrs. S. Medona, W/o. Suresh, No.21/1, Rojavanam Apartment, Tagore 3^rd Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600 023 ….Applicant

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

M/s. HDB Financial Service Limited,

¶10

Having its Reg. Office at: Radhika, 2^nd Floor,

¶11

Law Garden Road, Navarangpura

¶12

Ahmedabad – 380 009.

¶13

Branch Office At:

¶14

4^th Floor, Loyal Towers, # 68/2, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006. Rep by its Authorized Officer Mr. G. Kumar,

¶15

Four S Enterprises No. 53, Annai Sathya Nagar, MGR Street, Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099.

¶16

Jayasudha. T, No. 53, Annai Sathya Nagar, MGR Street, Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099.

¶17

Thiyagaraj. D. No. 53, Annai Sathya Nagar, MGR Street, Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099. ….Respondents Counsels on record / appeared: Counsel for Applicant : M/s. R. Chandramohan Counsel for 1^st Respondent : Proxy Counsel Sh. R. Kannan

¶18

SA No. 490 of 2024

¶19

31.07.2024

¶20

PROCEEDINGS DATED 31.07.2024

¶21

IA/776/2024 [Emergent Petition]

¶22

Heard and the same is allowed.

¶23

IA/777/2024 [Stay Petition]

¶24

Heard on the maintainability.

¶25

The applicant is the tenant under the borrowers who are R2 to R4.

¶26

They are aggrieved by the order dated 18.04.2022 in Crl.MP No.919/2022 passed by the CMM, Egmore, passed under section 14 of the SARFAESI act against the borrowers. This applicant claims to be in possession of the portion of the premises in the capacity of the tenant.

¶27

The lease agreement is dated 26.02.2024 executed by the deceased mother of D3 and D4.

¶28

In the peculiar circumstances, notice to D2 to D4 are dispensed. Notice to the D1 bank is served and the Ld. Counsel for the bank submits that the SA is not minable since the date of lease deed is post creation of the security interest and the lease deed is not registered.

¶29

Since the SA is not maintainable in view of Hemraj Ratnakar Salian Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., and Ors, reported in 2021 SCC online SC 611 , the applicant cannot maintain the present petition questioning the legality or otherwise of the impugned order.

¶30

SA No. 490 of 2024

¶31

31.07.2024

¶32

However, considering the difficulties in re-locating by the applicant as urged by the Ld. counsel for the applicant, it is hereby directed that the D1 shall defer taking the possession of the property till 30.09.2024 provided the applicant filing an undertaking to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the property mentioned in the SA on or before 30.09.2024.

¶33

If no undertaking is filed, the defendant bank may proceed further. However, in any event, the defendant bank is entitled to recover the possession after 30.09.2024 by executing the warrants already obtained.

¶34

Thus, SA stands disposed.

¶35

A copy of this order be given free of cost to both the parties and the Ld. counsel for the bank to intimate the Authorized Officer of the bank regarding the instant order.

¶36

Registry is directed to number the SA and the IAs and the matter stands closed.

¶37

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

S Medona v. Hdb Financial Service Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Medona v. Hdb Financial Service 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

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus Maas Sanitary and Ceramics

State Bank of India versus R Tara

Canara Bank versus Durairaj

Rebello Sagaya Nathan versus Ugro Capital Ltd. and Zion Consultants and Ruby Joseph and Joseph Rebecca Elizabeth Susanna and Charles Anand Joseph

Kirubakaran versus State Bank of India

Bank of India versus Dharani Sugars