Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2012 (11) TMI 1334

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... came to be dismissed as well as judgment and order dated 7.8.2012 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, whereby Appeal No. 114 of 2012 filed by the petitioner against the order of the DRT came to be dismissed. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was having a possessory lien over the premises in question i.e. Office premises No. 106, 1st floor, 'A' Wing, 212, Dalamal Towers, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 and was in possession of the premises therefore the respondent could not have evicted the petitioner from the subject premises by invoking the provisions of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( SARFAESI Act ) for the defaul .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d order and contended that M/s. Heat Shrink Technologies Limited had availed certain credit facilities from the consortium consists of Bank of Baroda, State Bank of India, SBI Commercial and International Bank Limited, Bank International Indonesia and HDFC Bank. It is contended that Heat Shrink Technologies Limited at latter point of time was converted as RPEL Engineering Limited. The borrowing company secured the amount of credit facility extended by consortium bank, mortgaged its office premises No. 106, 1st floor, Dalamal Tower, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 (subject premises) in favour of the State Bank of India. Borrower on 9.3.1995 through its then Director had deposited the title deeds of the mortgaged property with State Bank of Indi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eat Shrink Technologies Ltd. (at present REPL) had availed certain credit facilities from the consortium banks i.e. Bank of Baroda, State Bank of India, SBI Commercial and International Bank Ltd., Bank International Indonesia and HDFC Bank Ltd. Heat Shrink Technologies Ltd. later on was converted as REPL Engineering Ltd. The borrower company to secure the amount of credit facilities extended by the consortium banks mortgaged its office premises No. 106, admeasuring 855 sq. feet situated on 1st floor, Dalamal Tower, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 (hereinafter referred to as mortgaged premises ) in favour of State Bank of India. The borrower had executed various necessary documents for availing the credit facilities as well as mortgaging its pr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mortgage premises. The short question which arises for consideration is.......... Whether the mortgagor can permit the petitioner to occupy the mortgaged premises after creating mortgage in contravention of provisions of Section 65-A of the Transfer of Property Act? It is brought to the notice of this Court that the said issue is considered by the Division Bench of Madras High Court in the case of Sree Lakshmi Products Rep. by its partner vs. State Bank of India [AIR 2007 Madras 148] in the backdrop of provisions of Section 65-A of the Transfer of Property Act. Relevant observations made in paragraph 8 of the said decision, reads thus: 8. In Sanjeev Bansal v. Oman International Bank SAOG 2006 (4) BC 299 (DB) Delhi High Court, a similar cont .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is created by the mortgagor in conformity with the mandate of requirements laid down in Section 65-A of Transfer of Property Act and not otherwise. Neither the mortgagor nor the lessee can defeat the right of mortgagee and no lessee can claim any protection unless his tenancy is as per the requirements of Section 65-A of Transfer of Property Act. 7. In the present case, the claim of the respondent bank stands on a much better footing since the petitioner is neither a tenant nor lessee of the mortgaged premises and claims its right over the mortgaged premises on the basis of possessory lien. In view of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case it is evident that the mortgagor though in a given case can let out the mortgaged p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates