The Court refused leave to an applicant to file a suit regarding property rights. Pending adjudication of title by a Division Bench and the secured creditor\'s initiation of demarcation via the Recovery Officer rendered the proposed suit unnecessary.
Leave sought to file a suit in the Madras High Court against the Official Liquidator was denied.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Comp.A.No.1010 of 2015 in C.P.No.103 of 1993
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
“..... b) this Hon'ble Court should not be pleased to grant leave to the applicants herein to file a suit before the Hon'ble High Court, Madras, against the Company M/s.Sethuraman Thiyagarajan Engineers Pvt. Ltd., (in liquidation) represented by the Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras, in respect of the property morefully described in the schedule hereunder ....”
2
“.... There shall be an order of interim stay in so far as the proceedings with respect to the personal property of the petitioner is concerned.”
4.1. By the said order, my predecessor, had held that the validation sought by the late husband of applicant No.1 to the effect that the company in liquidation had transferred leasehold rights in his favour, was not bonafide.
4.2. Accordingly, the learned Company Judge, vide order dated 30.04.2013, held that the sale held qua the subject property in favour of the auction purchaser was not valid. It was consequently set aside.
3
assertions have been made by the SBI :
“8. I submit that against the order passed in CA No.125 of 2011, the husband of the 1st petitioner had filed OSA No.222 of 2013 and in the stay petition, interim stay has been granted insofar as the petitioner's personal property is concerned. Accordingly the second respondent has moved the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal for demarcation of the property and bring the same for sale. It is submitted that the premises in question was in occupation of a tenant and the recovery officer was requested to attach the proportionate rent payable to the late husband of the first petitioner herein in respect of the property. The tenant had replied that they are shortly going to vacate the premises and are now adjusting towards the advance already paid and as such are not paying any rent as of now.
4
per the approved plan the present construction in the fifth floor regarding the disputed premises is 3972 square feet and a proportionately dividing the constructor the area in respect of 354 square feet of land and 167 square feet of land comes to an extent of 2697 square feet and 1275 square feet.”
(i) The issue as to whether in the entire land, the late husband of applicant No.1 had the interest, is pending adjudication before the Division Bench ;
5
(ii) In any event, SBI asserts its right only in a portion of the
land and building, and SBI has stated that it has moved the Recovery Officer for demarcation, and if the same is carried out, it will serve the purpose of the applicant herein.
before me, in the affidavit, as indicated above, the applicant would have to make appropriate representation before the Recovery Officer.
19.07.2016
gg
6
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
gg
Application No.1010 of 2015 in C.P.No.103 of 1993
19.07.2016
3 issues framed by the court
Whether leave to file a suit concerning property rights should be granted given pending adjudication of title and secured creditor\'s demarcation plan.
Whether the Recovery Officer\'s demarcation of the secured creditor\'s rights satisfies the applicant\'s need for litigation.
Whether the application against filing of suit under Art 226 will be allowed.
Applicant
State Bank of India
RAJIV SHAKDHER
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
