INDIAN BANK Vs. NIPPON ENTERPRISES SOUTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions relate to the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai dated 30.9.2010 made in R.A.(S.A.) No. 61 of 2010. Writ Petition No. 23850 of 2010 is filed by the Indian Bank, Adyar Branch (hereinafter called as "the bank") and Writ Petition No. 27432 of 2010 is filed by M/s Nippon Enterprises South, Chennai (hereinafter called as "the tenant).

(2.) For disposal of both the writ petitions, we refer to the following facts as culled out from the respective affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions. M/s Elke Enterprises had availed certain financial facilities from the bank amounting to a sum of Rs. 6,50,00,000/- under open cash credit facility and packing credit facility under the sanction ticket dated 16.10.2007. Those financial facilities were duly secured by creating equitable mortgage over the immovable properties belonging to one Mr. Shyam Narain and Mr. Bharat Shyam Narain situate at Laxmi Narain Towers at Door Nos. 71 & 72, Wallajah Road, Triplicane, Chennai. Both the said Shyam Narain and Bharat Shyam Narain stood also as personal guarantors for the financial facilities and created an equitable mortgage by way of deposit of original title deeds with the bank on 10.1.2008. M/s Nippon Enterprises South claims to be the tenant in occupation of the entire ground floor and Shop Nos. B3 & B4 in the basement of the said property. Petitioners in M.P. No. 2 of 2010 in W.P. No. 23850 of 2010 are the employees of the tenant.

(3.) M/s Elke Enterprises committed default in repayment of the financial facilities and therefore the bank invoked the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter called as "the SARFAESI Act") and the asset of M/s Elke Enterprises was classified as Non Performing Asset and the bank issued notice dated 15.7.2008 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. In spite of the said notice and within the period of sixty days, M/s Elke Enterprises did not clear the dues, which resulted in the bank issuing a notice dated 17.9.2008 under Section 13(4) for taking possession. A similar notice under Section 13(4)(d) was also issued to the tenant in respect of the portions of the property under their occupation. The said notice was also duly published in the newspapers.