Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
M/S. LEAR AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, PUNE V/S M/S. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, MUMBAI & OTHERS, decided on Wednesday, November 7, 2012.
[ In the High Court of Madras, Writ Petition No. 16472 of 2011 & M.P.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2011. ] 07/11/2012
Judge(s) : CHITRA VENKATARAMAN & R. KARUPPIAH
Advocate(s) : M. Krishnappan, S.C. V. Srinivasa Babu. R1 & R2, A.V. Radhakrishnan, , R3, No appearance.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page






#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw









    (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the Eviction Notice dated 17.6.2011 from the 1st and 2nd Respondents and quash the same and forbear the first and second respondent Bank from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lease premises at Plot No.E-15 Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Industrial Complex Maraimalai Nagar – 603 209 Kancheepuram District by the petitioner company except by due process of law.)Chitra Venkataraman J.The tenant has approached this Court challenging the notice dated 17.6.2011 and for a direction to the first and second respondent Bank from interfering with the peaceful possession of the leased premises at Plot No.E-15 Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Industrial Complex Maraimalai Nagar – 603 209 Kancheepuram District by the petitioner company except by due process of law.2. The petitioner herein is a lessee of the property belonging to the defaulter/third respondent herein. The lease period was for six year term starting from 1.12.2006. It is stated by the petitioner that the company had paid a sum of Rs.40.00 lakhs as 10 months rent as interest free refundable security deposit to the third respondent. The monthly rent was fixed at Rs.4.00 lakhs payable to the third respondent. At the end of 12 month period there would be an escalation on base rent by 7%. As on the date of filing of the Writ Petition the petitioner was paying a sum of Rs.6 19 165/- as monthly rent. It is a matter of record that in the meantime on the default committed by the third respondent proceedings were initiated against the third respondent by the second respondent under the SARFAESI Act. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the Bank that the property which is leased out to the petitioner although a subject matter of security for availing the loan by the third respondent however was not included in the Section 13(2) notice. However on 17th June 2011 the creditor bank issued a notice to the petitioner herein intimating about the legal process of attaching and taking possession of various assets/properties mortgaged to the Bank one of which happens to be the property petitioner was called upon to vacate the premises within 15 days from the receipt of the said letter. Hence the present Writ Petition has been filed.3. Even though notice was served on the third respondent none represented for the third respondent/defaulter. In the meantime the petitioner herein has entered into an compromise with the first and second respondents stating that the bank may take symbolic possession of the lased property without disturbing the actual physical possession of the property and the tenancy rights of the petitioner. The petitioner has no objection to this symbolic possession. The petitioner shall vacate the premises and handover vacant possession of the property on “as is where is basis” to the first and second respondents on or before 30th July 2013.4. In the light of the compromise thus arrived at learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the Writ Petition may be closed recording the joint compromise.5. Both learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Bank submitted that the third respondent had not agreed for such a compromise. However taking note of the possession notice issued and recording the compromise thus arrived at between the petitioner and the first and second respondents the Writ Petition stands disposed of. The joint memo of compromise dated 23rd September 2012 shall from part of the order of this Court. No costs. Consequently M.P.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2011 are closed.