9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent matter emanate from the failure of the Appellant-M/s. Esjayee Impex Pvt. Ltd. to repay a Loan to Canara Bank and the consequent proceedings initiated by the Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act). The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate passed an Order Under Section 14 of the said Act on 24.2.2019 qua handing over possession of Secured Assets to Canara Bank in respect of an immovable property being Old Door No. 23, New Door No. 2, Rajarathinam Street, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010 as security to the Bank. 2. The Appellant, aggrieved by this Order, filed S.A. No. 139 of 2019 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-1 (hereafter re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unity to all concerned that Order be transmitted to the High Court. 5. The Appellant-Borrower assailed this Order in the present proceedings. An Interim Order was passed on 6.12.2019 directing the private Respondent not to create any Third party interest in the property in question. The Auction Purchaser made a grievance on 27.7.2020 that despite the deposit of the amount he was being deprived of enjoyment in view of this Interim Order and thus, the matter was directed to be taken up on 18.8.2020. 6. On the said date, it was recorded that to say the least it was an unusual Order passed by the High Court taking into consideration the nature of relief prayed for. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Auction Purchaser was als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant one further opportunity should be granted and it was only the Covid situation, which persuaded us to extend the time till 31.12.2020 to do the needful failing which, the Special Leave Petitions shall stand dismissed without the requirements of any further Orders from this Court. 9. When the matter has come up today learned Counsel for the Appellant very fairly concedes that the amount has not been deposited but a purchaser has been located who would give part of the amount. In our view this would neither sub-serve the purpose nor is it in compliance with our Orders and for that matter the peremptory nature of the last Order would come into play. 10. We, however, have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant, who eloquently endeavo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
