SUNDARESHAN Vs. ICICI BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER claims to be a lessee in the property belonging to the 3rd respondent, against which proceedings are said to have initiated by the 1st respondent -Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity "SARFAESI Act"). In pursuance of such proceedings, the rights created by the security interest was assigned in favour of the 2nd respondent, is the contention of the 1st respondent. It is the 2nd respondent who has now proceeded against the property by attachment under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act under orders of the jurisdictional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court.

(2.) DESPITE notice to the 2nd respondent, by paper publication, the 2nd respondent has filed to appear in the present proceedings.

(3.) IT is also to be noticed that though the petitioner claims that he is a lessee in the property, by the specific averments of the petitioner in the plaint, as extracted by the learned Munsiff in Exhibit P1 judgment, the petitioner's claim in the suit was as a mortgagee of the property. Evidently the said mortgage was by an unregistered document and after the security interest created in favour of the Bank. In any event, if the petitioner has a claim of lease, then necessarily that would have to be agitated before the appropriate forum, as has been declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harshad Govardan Sondagar vs. International Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. [2014 (4) SCALE 484]. In such circumstances, the writ petition is closed, however, leaving the remedies open to the petitioner to be agitated in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court afore -cited. Parties to suffer their respective costs.