Allowed

Smt. Vathsala T v. M/S. Indostar Capital Finance Limited

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2021WP/20827/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a tenant lawyer whose possession was taken by a NBFC under SARFAESI Act proceedings. The court quashed the eviction order and restored possession to the tenant, subject to a refund of principal security money later.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner restored in possession of the property; impugned order set at naught; criminal proceedings against lender officials to be disposed conditionally.

Smt. Vathsala T Vs M/S. Indostar Capital Finance… — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.20827 OF 2021(GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. VATHSALA T, D/O. H R THIMMAIAH, ADVOCATE, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1074, GROUND FLOOR, 11^TH MAIN ROAD, 2^ND STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGLAURU 560 086.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY N, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

M/S. INDOSTAR CAPITAL FINANCE LIMITED., REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, OFFICE AT NO. 13, CRN CHAMBERS, 4^TH FLOOR, KASTURBA ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶13

M/S. TKK ZIKPPERS AND THREADS (INDIA) PVT LTD REP BY ITS DIRECTORS, OFFICE AT NO. 13/19, 3^RD CROSS, MARAPPANAPALYA INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, YESHWANTHAPURA, BENGALURU 560 022.

¶14

MR. KISHORE AGARWAL NO. 159, 2^ND FLOOR, 3^RD MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, MARAPPANAPALYA, YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU 560 096.

¶15

MR. SATNELY KRIZ NO. 13/19, 2^ND FLOOR, 3^RD CROSS, MARAPPANAPALYA, YESHWANTHAPUR, BENGALURU 560 022.

¶16

¶17

MRS. VIJETHARAJ M K NO. 1074/2, 11^TH MAIN ROAD, NAGPURA, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, RAJAJINAGAR, BENAGALURU 560 086.

¶18

M/S. OM INTERNATIONAL REP BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, OFFICE AT NO. 1074/2, 11^TH MAIN ROAD, NAGPURA, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU 560 086.

¶19

SRI. M KANTARAJ S/O. LATE. MAYIGAIAH, R/AT NO. 1074, GROUND FLOOR, 11^TH MAIN ROAD, 2^ND STATE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU 560 086.

¶20

… RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. ABHINAY V, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO PUT THE PETITIONER IN POSSESSION OF GROUND FLOOR PORTION OF SCHEDULE B PROPERTY AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶24

ORDER

¶25

A distressed lady lawyer of repute is knocking at the

¶26

doors of Writ Court grieving that she being the tenant of subject property in which both her residence & home office are situate has been taken away by the respondent – lending institution pursuant to the proceedings taken up under SARFAESI Act, 2002 on the ground that the

¶27

¶28

respondent borrower and the sureties have not repaid the outstanding debts.

¶29

Respondent – lending institution is represented by its Sr. Panel Counsel who opposed the grant of interim relief; however, this court vide order dated 19.11.2021 had directed restoration of ‘permissive occupation’ of the premises to the petitioner so that she could take refuse both for residence and occupation; graciously this direction was obeyed and the petitioner has been reinstated in the property; when this matter was taken up before this court today for consideration, the respondentborrower & the sureties despite service of notice, have chosen to remain unrepresented.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶31

parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant reprieve to the petitioner as under and for the following reasons:

¶32

(a) There is no dispute that the subject property in which the security interest was created, belongs to the principal borrower and that the petitioner happens to be the tenant in possession of the same; petitioner’s assertion that she has paid to the owner of the property a sum of

¶33

¶34

Rs.15,00,000/- by RTGS, is established and that this amount will be refunded to her when the lease is determined; petitioner’s contention that whatever interest that would have accrued on this amount shall be treated as the notional rent, is not in dispute.

¶35

(b) Learned Panel Counsel for the bank submits that now, the Principal Borrower having negotiated a One Time Settlement has paid the amount; if that be so, the property ceases to be a security interest of the lender and that the petitioner can continue in its possession till the lease is determined and the aforesaid amount i.e., Rs.15,00,000/- is refunded to her.

¶36

(c) Petitioner’s undertaking that the proceedings in Crime No.198/2021 initiated on her FIR/complaint shall not be pressed, is placed on record; the jurisdictional criminal court shall at sight of this judgment shall dispose off the said proceedings accordingly; the allegations made in the complaint against the officials of the lender institution or others shall be treated as having been withdrawn unconditionally; it hardly needs to be stated that the Writ Court cannot turn a Nelson’s eye to the woes of distressed & scrupulous litigants that are victimized by the conspiracy of circumstances.

¶37

¶38

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition

¶39

succeeds and the impugned order is set at naught; this court places on record its appreciation for the grace shown by learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the first respondent lending institution.

¶40

It is open to the petitioner to press the observations made herein above in any proceedings for protecting her possession and seeking refund of the amount in deposit as mentioned above, independent of the subject instrument/document to which petitioner and the landlord happen to be the signatories.

¶41

Costs made easy.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Bsv

Smt. Vathsala T v. M/S. Indostar Capital Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vathsala T v. M/S. Indostar Capital Finance Limited

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

Dandavathi Vidyavardhaka Sanga (R) Vs Registrar of Societies/Assistant Registrar

Smt Alakananda Deshpande Vs Karnataka State Judicial

Smt Dr Vidya L P Vs Dr Bharathraj M Y

Sri Sharanappa Basappa Vs the Authorised Officer Sundaram House Finance

Sri Manjunath Pv Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Rigan Vs State of Karnataka