KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs M S KARTIKEY PAPAER DISTRIBUTION PVT LTD on 17 November 2025

JUDGMENT

1. This Miscellaneous Application has been brought by the applicant-bank for clarification of order dated 04.4.2024 passed by this Tribunal. It is submitted that SA No.571/2021 was disposed of by the Tribunal on 04.4.2024 in light of the order in Writ C No.1738 of 2024, which was confined to residential property situated at A-3/7, Vishwas Khand Gomti Nagar Lucknow. It was observed by this Tribunal that except the possession only rental property at Faizabad, physical possession of other mortgage property has been handed over to the bank.

2. It is pointed out that for the loan, the bank has got secured assets of seven properties, in which, property at Sl nos.1, 2, 3, 4 have been redeemed by the mortgagor and property at Sl No.4 has been redeemed at the direction of the Hon’ble High Court. \' //

3. It is further submitted that property at SI No.5, 6 & 7 has neither been redeem nor handed over to the bank and for realization of debts is yet to be satisfied. It is stated that two secured assets are situated at Faizabad and one at Aminabad, Lucknow.

4. It is pointed out that Writ C No.1738/2024 was filed with regard to Residential Property A3/7, Vishwas Khand Gomti Nagar, however, while disposing the SA No.571/2021, this Tribunal observed as follows: "It is submitted by the applicants, the physical possession of the properties have been willingly handed over to the qb:

bank by the applicants, except one of the rented property which is situated at Faizubad, U.P and the order dated 21.2.2024 passed by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court passed in Writ-C 1738/2024 has also been complied by the applicants, thereafter the said properties have been disposed/auctioned by the bank and the said auction proceedings have never been challenged by the applicants, therefore, the entire proceedings seems to have been conducted with the consent and knowledge of the applicants, in these circumstances the S.A. has become infructuous, no cause of action survives for the applicants to continue with the S.A. Hence, the present Securitization Application is accordingly dismissed as infructuous.

5. I have considered rival submissions. It is submitted that the following properties were secured assets and dealt with in the manner given hereinafter: - Sr I Property description Property status No.

1. Property at 177/71, Gwyne Road, Puljhau Lal, Aminabad, Lucknow admeasuring 280 sqr ft. owned by Mr. Raj Kumar Agarwal Property Redeemed by Mortgagor against amount of Rs.63.00 lakh

2. Property A-76, Talkatora Industrial Estate, Talkatora, Lucknow owned by Kartikaya Paper Distributor Pvt. Ltd. Property Redeemed by Mortgagor against amount of Rs.265.00 lakh

3. r med by Road, Aminabad, Lucknow Mortgagor against owned by kartikaya Paper amount of Rs.270.00 Distributors Pvt. Ltd. 1 lakh

4. Residential property situated at A-3/7, Vishwas Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, owned by Mr. Raj Kumar Agarwal Offer of 581.00 lakh given to redeem the property but borrower/third party failed to make payment as per their offer \W"

le

As per Hon’ble High Court directions Property handed over peacefully to bank by mortgagor on 1.03.2024 and yet to be sold.

5. A commercial/Residential property on main Rikabganj Road, Faizabad The property is neither redeemed by the mortgagor and nor in possession of the bank. steps to be taken for possession and sell the same for recovery of dues

6. Plot No.3 176 and 3177 (Teli Tola) admeasuring 13,888 sqn ft. at Mauja Faizabad, Pargana Haveli Awa(Ih, Tehsil & Dist Faizabad The property is neither redeemed by the mortgagor and nor in possession of the bank. steps to be taken for possession and sell of the same for recovery of dues.

7. All that piece and parcel of A”T” shaped property on Ground Floor and Trapezoidal shape on First Floor purchased in 3 parts (2 for GF & 1 for FF), 56, Gwyne Road, part ofGuara House, Aminabad, Lucknow The property is neither redeemed by the mortgagor and nor in possession of the bank. Steps to be taken for taking possession and sell the same for recovery of dues.

6. 1 find that the order was in limited compass to the Writ C No.1738/2024 and the fact that possession of all the properties have been given was passed on wrong premises of fact. I am of view that MA is fit to be allowed.

7. The only grievance of the respondents for the defendants being regarding limitation, the factual aspect is not denied. As far as limitation is concerned, I am of view that by passing of the order \\./ k /

dated 04.4.2024, any right has not accrued in favour of the defendants as the property was secured asset.

8. It is clarified that the respondent-bank is at liberty to proceed against the borrowers/ mortgagors in securitization proceeding against other properties till the debt is satisfied, accordingly, it is further clarified that order dated 04.4.2024 was limited to the property mentioned and the applicant-bank is at liberty to proceed further for satisfaction of the debts against other secured assets.

9. Needless to say, that respondent/applicant of the SA will be at liberty to file fresh SA if the occasion arises.

10. Accordingly, MA is disposed of.

11. File be consigned to record room. (Dictated) ( b (Pravas Kumar singh) Presiding Officer Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 17th Day of November, 2025. F \ \, -Z (Pravas Kumar Singh) Presiding Officer (Veeresh)