CHANDRU ENTERPRISES Vs. ICICI BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the sale certificate issued by the first respondent in favour of the third respondent in pursuant to the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu dtd. 14/7/2022 in CMP.No.5208 of 2022, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case reads as follows:

(3.) The first respondent Bank has filed a counter affidavit refuting the averments made in the writ petition by stating that when the writ petition came up for admission on 21/8/2024, the respondent Bank has informed the Court that physical possession of the property was taken over by the first respondent through the Advocate Commissioner appointed in the application filed under Sec. 14 of the SARFAESI Act by the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu and the same has been handed over to the Auction Purchaser / third respondent. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that in pursuant to the warrant issued by the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu in CMP.No.5208 of 2022, the Advocate Commissioner along with the assistance of police and revenue officials has taken physical possession of the mortgaged property including the land in S.No.811/1, Uthukadu Village Walajabad and the Advocate Commissioner has handed over the same to the first respondent on 12/8/2024, being the Authorized Officer of the first respondent bank and thereafter physical possession of the entire property was handed over to the third respondent on 12/8/2024 and the acknowledgement given by the third respondent after having received the physical possession of the entire property is filed along with the affidavit. Thus, according to the first respondent Bank, as of now the physical possession of the property is in the custody of the first respondent and the request for occupation of the property by the petitioner cannot be considered by the first respondent.