Disposed

Kirubakaran v. State Bank of India

DRT8 Aug 2024SA/502/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In SARFAESI SA No. 502 of 2024, the Tribunal held an unregistered tenant petitioner could not maintain the application citing Hemraj Ratnakar Salian. However, balancing relocation difficulties, the Tribunal directed eviction by 30.09.2024 if an undertaking was filed, or via execution warrants otherwise, before disposing of the SARFAESI. Applies banking-recovery and service/employment issues.

What did the court decide?

Direction to applicant to quit and deliver vacant possession by 30.09.2024 upon filing an undertaking; SARFAESI application disposed of.

Kirubakaran versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

SA No. 502 of 2024

08.08.2024

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 08^th day of August, 2024

¶6

Present: SHRI A. S. JAYACHANDRA

¶7

Presiding Officer (In – charge)

¶8

SARFAESI APPLICATION No.502 of 2024

¶9

Mr. D. Kirubakaran S/o. Dhanabalan, Door No.5, Flat No. S9, SS Paradise, Kambar Street, Muthamizh Nagar, Pammal, Chennai – 600 075. ….Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

The Authorized Officer, M/s. State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, No.32, Red Cross Building, 2^nd Floor, Montieth Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶12

Mr. Aboo Babu Mdshafi, S/o. Mr. V.S.A. Babu, No. 6, Muthamizh Nagar, Zackir Hussain Street, Pammal, Chennai – 600 075. ….Respondents

¶13

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : Mr.. R. Kannan Counsel for Respondent : Dr. T. Ramasamy

¶15

PROCEEDINGS DATED 08.08.2024

¶16

Heard the Ld. Counsel.

¶17

The applicant is neither a borrower nor a guarantor. He is tenant under D2.

¶18

Since the matter is listed for hearing on the maintainability, the notices to D2 is dispensed.

SA No. 502 of 2024

08.08.2024

Admittedly, the tenancy is un-registered. In view of the ruling in 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 by which the Ld. CJM, Chengalpattu, dated 28.6.2024 in CMP No.1914/2024 which had permitted the assistance in taking possession of the property in question as against D2.

¶23

However, considering the difficulties in re-locating by the applicant as urged by the Ld. counsel, it is hereby directed that the applicant shall quit and deliver the vacant possession of the property on or before 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.

¶24

4 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. Thus, SA stands disposed.

¶25

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.

¶26

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

Kirubakaran v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kirubakaran v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

S Medona versus Hdb Financial Service Limited

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus Maas Sanitary and Ceramics

Bank of India versus Dharani Sugars

Purasawakam Santhatha Sanga Nidhi Limited versus City Union Bank Limited

Federal Bank versus Usharani