9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1014X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2017. The prescribed authority issued an order terminating the lease on November 14, 2017. The prescribed authority also passed an order requiring possession on January 19, 2018. The first respondent obtained possession of the immovable property on February 16, 2018. The proceedings undertaken by the first respondent was under the provisions of the Act of 1976. Although, the first respondent is entitled to prefer an appeal from an order passed by the prescribed authority, the first respondent did not do so. There are no ground to interfere with the decision of the first respondent to terminate the lease and take over possession thereof - petition dismissed. - W.P. No. 155 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 19-6-2019 - MR DEBANGSU BASAK, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the prescribed authority under the Act of 1976. There is a proceeding under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, inter alia, against the fourth respondent. In the event, the petitioner was intimated about the decision of the first respondent to evict the fourth respondent, then, the petitioner would have been in a position to take steps under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002. The petitioner is now without any valuable security. The Court should intervene. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the first respondent submits that the petitioner herein is a mortg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The fourth respondent was enjoying credit facilities from the petitioner. On or about August 9, 2006, the fourth respondent entered into a lease with the first respondent. The lease was for a long term period of 99 years with effect from May 15, 2006 till May 14, 2015. The fourth respondent approached the first respondent for granting permission to mortgage the leasehold rights in favour of the petitioner. By a letter dated September 13, 2006, the first respondent granted such consent. The consent, however, is not unconditional. By the writing dated September 13, 2006, the first respondent noted that, the consent was accorded without prejudice to the rights of the first respondent as lessor within the meaning of statute to be read with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained shall not be performed or if the demised premises be not used by the Lessee for the purpose for which it is being demised (within twelve months from the date of presents) or if the factory or manufacturing unit to be erected and established thereon as provided by these presents remains closed consecutively for 6 (six) months without reasonable cause or if the Lessee becomes insolvent or the company goes into liquidation or the firm dissolved or if the leasehold property and/or the structure be attached or if a Receiver be appointed of the demised premises or the building and structures to be erected thereon or of the plant, machines and appliance therein due to any act done or omitted to be done or suffered to be done by the Lessee an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge the leasehold interest, the machineries and assets with a Bank or any financial institution to obtain advance for the purpose of the business of the lessee on having No Objection Certificate from the Lessor. By a writing dated September 13, 2006, the first respondent gave its No Objection to enable the first respondent to create equitable mortgage of the leasehold interest. The relevant portion of the letter dated September 13, 2006 issued by the first respondent to the petitioner is as follows:- 5) You shall keep us informed immediately on liquidation of the loan by M/s. Cais Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. please note that this consent is accorded without prejudice to our rights as les ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
