Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Kelvin Dilipbhai Patel & vs Icici Bank Limited on 29 April, 2016

Author: N.V.Anjaria

Bench: N.V.Anjaria

                  C/SCA/6981/2016                                                   ORDER




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                    SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6981 of 2016
         ==========================================================
                      KELVIN DILIPBHAI PATEL & 1....Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus
                         ICICI BANK LIMITED....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MR SHAKTI S JADEJA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2
         MR SP MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2
         ==========================================================
          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
                           Date : 29/04/2016
                                         ORAL ORDER

The petitioners herein have questioned the action taken by the respondent-Bank under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioners claim the capacity of tenants and assert their tenancy rights with respect to the property mortgaged with the Bank. Admittedly, the bank in the process of taking steps under the provisions of the Act, has taken symbolic possession of the property on 26.11.2015.

2. Mr.Majmudar, learned advocate for the Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Tue May 03 02:33:55 IST 2016 C/SCA/6981/2016 ORDER petitioners relied on the decision of Harshad Govardhan Sondagar Vs. International Assets Reconstruction Co.Ltd, [(2014) 6 SCC 1]. He relied on observations made in Paragraph 24 of the said decision, wherein it is observed that appeal under Section 17 of the Act could not be available. This is coupled with observations of Apex Court in Vishal N. Kalsaria Versus Bank of India, [(2016) 3 SCC 762], more partcularily in Paragraphs 35, 36, 37 and 40, which were also emphasized.

3. NOTICE returnable on 10.06.2016.

4. As noted above, the bank has already taken symbolic possession of the property and that fact is not in dispute. By ad-interim relief, it is directed that status-quo shall be maintained with regard to mortgaged property in question till the next date.

5. Direct service is permitted.

Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Tue May 03 02:33:55 IST 2016 C/SCA/6981/2016 ORDER (N.V.ANJARIA, J.) Girish Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Tue May 03 02:33:55 IST 2016