w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

P. Tanveer Ahmed & Another v/s The Authorised Officer, M/s. Bank of Baroda, International Business Branch, Chennai

    C.R.P. No. 3829 of 2019
    Decided On, 27 July 2021
    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
    For the Petitioners: B. Thilak Narayanan, Advocate. For the Respondent: R. Umasuthan, Advocate.

Judgment Text
(Prayer: Revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 25.9.2019 in I.A.No.1015 of 2019 in S.A.No.324 of 2019 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai.)

Sanjib Banerjee, CJ.

1. The subsequent events have completely overtaken the petition and the prayers made therein.

2. It is evident that the petitioners herein, defaulters in making repayment to the respondent secured creditor, carried a matter to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The matter pertains to the measures taken by the secured creditor in respect of immovable properties furnished by way of security.

3. On the petitioners’ interim application, the Debts Recovery Tribunal issued an initial order on September 13, 2019 directing the secured creditor to maintain the status quo prevailing on such date in respect of the property described in possession notices dated July 26, 2019 and August 3, 2019 till September 30, 2019.

4. The grievance carried by the petitioners in the present petition is that such interim order was sought to be vacated at the behest of the bank at a time when the petitioners could not be represented because of the death in the family of the advocate. The petitioners say that the order impugned dated September 25, 2019 should not have been passed in the absence of the petitioners. By the order impugned dated September 25, 2019, the earlier order of September 13, 2019 was clarified to the effect that the physical dispossession of the petitioners herein from the property or properties in question would not take place till September 30, 2019, but no further embargo was placed on the secured creditor.

5. It now appears that the property has been sold. Accordingly, there is no question of restoring the status quo ante since the secured creditor had the right to sell the property and third party interests in respect of the property have accrued.

6. The petitioners claim that a substantial portion of the debt due has been repaid and, according to the petitioners, about Rs.14 lakh remains outstanding after paying off more than Rs.1.10 crore since the receipt of the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. However, the secured creditor claims that after adjusting the sale proceeds, an amount in excess of Rs.60 lakh remains due.

7. Since the relief in respect of the relevant property can no longer be obtained by the petitioners upon the sale in respect thereof being concluded, the parties are left free to workout their remedies in accordance with law. The Debts Recovery Tribunal will do we

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ll to dispose of the petitioners’ plea before it as expeditiously as possible. 8. C.R.P.No.3829 of 2019 is disposed of without interfering with the order impugned dated September 25, 2019. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.25245 and 25247 of 2019 are closed. There will be no order as to costs.