Dismissed

Visesh Cargo and Travels Pvt. .Ltd v. M/s.H.L.Marine Food and 5 Others

Madras HC21 Nov 2019A/3323/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed an application to implead a secured creditor and successful bidders in an SARFAESI auction as necessary parties in a suit for money recovery, ruling that the aggrieved applicant must seek remedies before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

The application to implead respondents 4 to 6 as defendants in C.S.No.585 of 2017 is dismissed.

Visesh Cargo and Travels Pvt. .Ltd Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶4

A. No.3323 of 2019

¶5

¶6

C.S.No.585 of 2017 Visesh Cargo & Travels Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Mr.M.Gangadharan, having Office at No.6, Avvaiyar Street, Meenambakkam, Chennai – 600 027. ..Plaintiff Vs.

¶7

1.M/s.H.L.Marine Food Rep. By its Sole Proprietrix, D.Manjula W/o S.Dayanidhi NO.4 Samy Street Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002.

¶8

2.D.Manjula W/o S.Dayanidhi Plot No.AP2249, Door No.58-E, 'L' Block, 26th Street, Anna Nagar East, Chennai-600 102.

¶9

3.S.Dayanidhi S/o T.V.Sarangan Plot No.AP2249, Door No.58-E, 'L' Block, 26th Street, Anna Nagar East, Chennai-600 102. ..Defendants A.3323 of 2019

¶10

Visesh Cargo & Travels Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Mr.M.Gangadharan, Having Office at No.6, Avvaiyar Street, Meenambakkam, Chennai – 600 027. ..Applicant/Plaintiff

¶11

Vs.

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

¶14

1.M/s.H.L.Marine Food Rep. By its Sole Proprietrix, D.Manjula W/o S.Dayanidhi No.4 Samy Street Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002.

¶15

2.D.Manjula W/o S.Dayanidhi Plot No.AP2249, Door No.58-E, 'L' Block, 26th Street, Anna Nagar East, Chennai-600 102. 3.S.Dayanidhi S/o T.V.Sarangan Plot No.AP2249, Door No.58-E, 'L' Block, 26th Street, Anna Nagar East, Chennai-600 102. ..Respondents 1 to 3 / Defendants 1 to 3 4.M/s. RBL Bank Ltd., having its Branch Office at Anand Business Centre, No.105/56, G.N.Chetty Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Rep. by its Authorised Representative Mr.L.Aravind 5.Mrs.S.Revathi, W/o.Mr.Sampath Kumar,

¶16

6.Mrs.Raashmi Devi, W/o.Dr.Vinoth.K.V. Both are residing at, No.14/20, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar 1^st Street, South Mada Street, Villivakkam, Chennai-600 049. ..Proposed Parties/ Respondents Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to implead the following proposed parties (1) M/s. RBL Bank Ltd., having its Branch Office at Anand Business Centre, No.105/56, G.N.Chetty Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017, Rep. by its Authorised Representative Mr.L.Aravind as 4^th defendant (2)Mrs.S.Revathi, W/o.Mr.Sampath Kumar, as 5^th defendant (3)Mrs.Raashmi Devi, W/o.Dr.Vinoth.K.V. both are residing at, No.14/20, Rajiv https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Gandhi Nagar 1^st Street, South Mada Street, Villivakkam,

¶17

¶18

Chennai-600 049, as 6^th defendant in C.S.No.585/2017.

¶19

This application coming on this day before this court for hearing, and the Court made the following order:

¶20

In a suit filed for recovery of money, the plaintiff has come up with this application to implead the respondents 4 to 6 as defendants 4 to 6 in the above suit.

¶21

According to the learned counsel for the applicant, in A.No.4187 of 2017, property in dispute was attached by this Court on 18.09.2017. Despite the same, the fourth respondent sold the property under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, in which, the defendants 5 and 6 are the successful bidders. According to the learned counsel, the

¶22

respondents 4 to 6 are necessary parties in this application.

¶23

The learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the property is worth about Rs.3 crores, but in the auction, it was sold for Rs.1 crore and 29 lakhs and if the applicant was put on notice, he would have participated in the auction proceedings to protect his interest.

¶24

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6 would argue that they are the purchasers in the auction conducted under the SARFAESI Act and if the

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ applicant is aggrieved by the measure taken by the

¶26

4th respondent, the remedy is before the Debt Recovery

¶27

¶28

Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act.

¶29

In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the

¶30

suit has been filed for recovery of money and though there was an order of attachment in A.No.4187 of 2017, the property was sold by the secured creditor under the Provisions of the SARFAESI Act. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6, if the applicant is aggrieved by the action of the fourth respondent, he has to file an appeal / application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents 4 to 6 are not necessary parties to this proceedings. In that view, this application is dismissed.

¶31

further proceedings.

¶32

21/11/2019

¶33

//Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2019.

¶34

jj 02/12/2019

¶35

From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Visesh Cargo and Travels Pvt. .Ltd v. M/s.H.L.Marine Food and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Visesh Cargo and Travels Pvt. .Ltd v. M/s.H.L.Marine Food and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Lal Chand Jain Vs No Respondent

P.Sengalai and 5 others Vs K.Balasubramani and another

Sutherland Global Services Private Ltd. Vs Saneesh Mathew

N.Sakunthala Vs No Respondent

Indira Rajakrishna Vs No Respondent

Nazneen Begum., and 4 others Vs Mr. Kareem Ahamed., and 4 others