Dismissed

Y.Deepa v. Canara Bank

Madras HC12 Jul 2021WP/35932/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissing a writ petition seeking to restrain a bank from initiating proceedings under S.F.I. Act or evicting petitioners claiming tenancy over residential portions of a secured asset. The Court held that Mandamus cannot prevent statutory proceedings and that lease rights subservient to prior mortgage cannot affect the mortgagee. Adjacent matters closed as well.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000 to the respondent bank; associated W.M.P. closed.

Y.Deepa Vs Canara Bank — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:12.07.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P.No.35932 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.36848 of 2019

¶7

1.Y.Deepa 2.J.Mohamed Meeran 3.A.Shajahan 4.M.Devendiran 5.S.Prabhu 6.M.Surendhar .. Petitioners

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.Canara Bank Rep. by its Manager, No.524, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600017.

¶10

2.M.A.Jahanggir 3.M/s.Techno Builders, Door No.4/32, Plot No.39, AJS Towers, Royala Nagar 1^st Main Road, Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089. .. Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the 1^st respondent from initiating proceedings under The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 or any other law, and also forbearing the respondents from forcibly evicting the petitioners from the residential portions occupied by them in pursuant to the Lease agreements dated 04.03.2017, 05.12.2016, 21.04.2018, 03.02.2019, 18.03.2019 and 06.03.2019.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Muruganantham for Mr.M.Rajamani For Respondents : Mr.R.Umasuthan for R-1 : Ms.S.Thenmozhi Sivaperumal

¶13

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

¶14

for RR 2 and 3 ORDER

¶15

(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶16

The prayer in the petition is for the respondent bank to be restrained from initiating proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 on the ground that the petitioners are tenants at parts of the secured asset occupied by them pursuant to lease agreements executed between 2016 and 2019.

¶17

A writ in the nature of mandamus cannot be issued to prevent any party, particularly a nationalised bank, to take steps under a statutory provision or to approach any particular forum in accordance with law. Further, a casual reading of the papers would reveal that the secured asset was furnished as a security long prior to the dates of lease indicated by the petitioners in the petition. It is elementary that upon an asset being furnished by way of security as a mortgage, if subsequent rights are created, without notice to the mortgagee, those rights are subservient to the mortgage and cannot affect the rights of the mortgagee.

¶18

There is no merit in the petition and it has needlessly remained pending in this Court for nearly two years. The only submission on merits made on behalf of the second and third respondents is that they have made some payment to the bank and the bank should consider a settlement. These are areas which a Writ Court refrains from going into. There is no basis to the petitioners' claim and it is evident that the second and third respondents have set up the petitioners to prejudice the claim of the respondent bank.

¶19

W.P.No.35932 of 2019 is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the respondent bank. The bank will be entitled to realise it from the petitioners or from the borrowers. Consequently, W.M.P.No.36848 of 2019 is closed.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶21

//True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

sra

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

The Manager, Canara Bank No.524, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 017.

¶27

1 cc to Mr. M.Rajamani, Advocate SR.32948 (28/09/2021)

¶28

W.P.No.35932 of 2019

¶29

VSNII (CO) PR (16/07/2021)

¶30

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

Y.Deepa v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.Deepa v. Canara Bank

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

A.Kaja Khan Vs Union Bank of India

S.John Pushparaj Vs a.Ashokan

Al Ameen International Ltd. Vs State Bank of India

S.Susil Kumar Vs The Authorised Officer and Chief Manager

M.Ashok Mootha Vs Indusind Bank

The Chief Engineer Highway Vs M/S.Roman Tarmat Ltd.