Dismissed

Shoukath Ali v. South Indian Bank

DRT14 Jun 2023SA/108/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application by a borrower challenging possession notices under the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal held that mortgaged land was not agricultural at the time of securing the loan based on the borrower's own declaration, and an Advocate Commissioner notice was not a challengeable measure.

What did the court decide?

SA No. 108 of 2022 stands dismissed.

Shoukath Ali versus South Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 14^th DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶4

PRESENT: Su. WILLYAHM, B.Sc., M.L. [DISTRICT JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

S.A No. 108 of 2022

¶6

Between

¶7

Shoukath Ali, S/o Ibrahim, Machingal House, Moorkanad P.O., Malappuram -679 338.

¶8

--- Applicant

¶9

And

¶10

The Authorized Officer, South Indian Bank, Regional Office, Kozhikode, 1^st Floor, Happy Towers, Vaikkom Mohammed Basheer Road, Mananchira P.O, Kozhikode-1.

¶11

--- Defendant

¶12

This petition coming on 23.05.2023 for hearing before me in the presence of Mr. Jithendran, Advocate, representing the counsel on record for the Applicant and Mr.Varughese Cherian, Advocate for the defendant and upon hearing arguments of learned Counsels for both the parties and upon perusing the material on records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Securitisation Application was filed on 14.03.2022 seeking to declare that the possession of secured assets of the applicant by the defendant bank is illegal and to set aside all the steps taken by the defendant under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and order payment of compensation to the applicant for the loss sustained by the illegal act of the defendant.

¶15

SA No.108 of 2022

¶16

2. The averments of the applicant in the SA in brief are as follows:

¶17

The applicant availed a CCOL, ECLGS and FITTL Covid Moratorium facilities. The applicant was conducting a Chicken feeds manufacturing unit in the name and style of M/s Safin Feeds and chicken farm. The account was regular till 2018 July. In August 2018 flood affected in that area causing severe damage to the manufacturing unit and farm. The agricultural crops in the property were destroyed. All the feeds and chickens were flooded and huge loss was occurred. Again in 2019 also flood destroyed the applicant’s business, this situation badly affected in repayment of the loan. For availing the loan applicant mortgaged property having an extent of 76.4 Ares (64.77 Ares + 5.56 Ares + 6.07 Ares) in Sy. No.184/1, Re. Sy.No.184/1-1, 184/1-131 and 184/1-28 of Moorkkanadu village, Perinthalmanna Taluk, Malappuram District and the property having an extent of 2.23 Ares in Sy. No.63/1-6 of Moorkkanadu village, Perinthalmanna Taluk, Malappuram District and property having an extent of 12.54 Ares in Sy. No.191/7, Re.Sy.No.191/7-4 of Moorkkanadu village, Perinthalmanna Taluk, Malappuram District. The 1^st item property is an agricultural land and exempted under Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶18

At the time of lockdown for the 2^nd wave of Covid 19 pandemic the defendant issued demand notice on 8.11.2021, Annexure-A1. Immediately applicant approached the defendant and stated the circumstances that lead to the default in making payment. In Annexure-A1 Schedule B property is an agricultural land.

¶19

On 02.03.2022 defendant bank issued possession notice, Annexure-A2 stating that the property of the applicant was taken symbolically. The 1^st item property mentioned in Annexure-A2 and B Schedule in A1 are agricultural properties which are exempted under Section 31(i) of Act. Photographs of the property is produced herewith as Annexure-A3.

¶20

Annexure-A2 possession notice was not published in two leading dailies as per the statute. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala Full Bench directed not to take any coercive steps in pandemic situation. The respondent Bank has not filed the statutory affidavit before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri including all the details. The defendant Bank approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court for taking actual possession of the property. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Manjeri appointed an Advocate Commissioner. The Advocate Commissioner issued notice dated 20.03.2023, Annexure-A4 stating that the properties will be taken on 17.04.2023.

¶21

Page 2 of 13

¶22

SA No.108 of 2022

¶23

In Annexure-A2 possession notice it is stated that the possession has been taken over for default in payment of Rs.1,95,53,099.47. Having aggrieved by the action taken by the defendant in invoking Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest, 2002, this S.A. is being filed.

¶24

The classification of the loans availed by the applicant as nonperforming is illegal and arbitrary. The credit facilities were operating within the permitted limits. The Bank is attempting to charge exorbitant amounts as interest. No publication was made in any newspaper of vernacular language or in English within the period of seven days from the date of taking possession. The Bank has exercised the power in a most arbitrary manner and hence all actions taken by the defendant without considering the legitimate rights of the applicant have to be declared null and void.

¶25

The B schedule property mentioned in Annexure-A1 and 1^st item property in A2 notices are an agricultural land. As per the SARFAESI Act, agricultural land is exempted under Section 31(i) of the Act. Hence the proceedings initiated by the defendant are illegal and warrants interference by this Hon'ble Tribunal.

¶26

Full bench of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala directed not to take coercive steps in the pandemic situation. In this case Annexure-A1 notice was issued at the time of lockdown in the State. The defendant has not shown the details of the property in Annexure-A2 possession notice. Along with the CMP the respondent Bank not filed the affidavit including all the details with regard to the loan. Order was passed by the CJM Manjeri without looking into the merits and passed the Order in mechanical way.

¶27

The defendant came on record and filed Written Statement interalia contending as follows :

¶28

All the averments, contentions, statements and allegations contained in the above S.A are denied by the defendant except those which are specifically admitted hereunder. The applicant himself has admitted the availment of the credit facilities and also the creation of security interest in favour of the defendant bank in respect of the subject properties. The fact regarding the default in repayment of the loan amount is also admitted by the applicant in the above S.A. The applicant availed Cash Credit Open Loan for a limit of Rs.150 lakh and for which Mr.Haseena Shoukathali and Kunharammu had stood as the guarantors and as security for the aforesaid facility, security interest was created in respect of three items of properties. In view of

¶29

Page 3 of 13

¶30

SA No.108 of 2022

¶31

the Covid scenario, at the request of the borrower, the defendant bank had given additional facilities by way of ECLGS and also the FITL facilities and the availment of the said facilities was also admitted by the applicant. The borrower had committed default in repayment of the facilities and in view of the default the defendant bank was constrained to declare the accounts as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) strictly in accordance with the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. The contention made by the applicant to the effect that the defendant bank had initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act, despite the accounts were operated within the permitted limit, is absolutely false. Demand notice dated 08.11.2021 was issued and the same was received by the applicant. The applicant or the guarantors neither raised any objection as per the statute nor did settle the account as per Annexure-A1 demand notice. Hence the defendant Bank proceeded further with the measures by issuing possession notice dated 02.03.2022.

¶32

The contention made by the applicant to the effect that 1^st item of property in Annexure-A2 possession notice is an agricultural property and exempted under Section 31(i) is absolutely false and denied. The exemption as provided under the aforesaid provision applicable only if the secured asset is an agricultural land at the time of creating the security interest. At the time of availment of the facility itself, the applicant himself has made a specific undertaking/ declaration before the defendant bank to the effect that “…the property is non-agricultural in nature & usage and shall continue to be in non-agricultural usage until the full tenure of the loan. That I shall be precluded from taking any contrary view as to the nature & usage of the land at any time during the tenure of the loan so as to affect enforcement of the above property under any applicable law”. The defendant bank had accepted the property as the non-agricultural dry land only as security interest. The copy of the declaration dated 19.01.2019 made by the applicant is produced herewith as AnnexureB1. Security interest was created in respect of the subject property only as a plain dry land at the time of availing the facility/creating the security interest in favour of the defendant bank. The copy of the possession certificate dated 31.10.2018 submitted by the applicant at the time of availment of the credit facility is produced herewith as Annexure-B2. The nature of the property described in Annexure-B2 itself will reveal the exact nature of the property which is mentioned as only as a dry land. The copy of the valuation report dated 17.01.2019 taken at the time of availment of the credit facility is also produced herewith as Annexure-B3.

¶33

The defendant bank had served the possession notice to the borrowers as produced by the applicant in the application as

¶34

Page 4 of 13

¶35

SA No.108 of 2022

¶36

Annexure-A2 and affixed the same in the properties and also published as per the rules. True copies of the publications in Malayala Manorama daily and The Hindu daily dated 08.03.2022 are produced herewith as Annexure-B4 series.

¶37

There is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the applicant under grounds in the application. There is no merit in the contention that the defendant bank had charged the exorbitant interest in the accounts and hence denied by the defendant. There is no applicability in respect of the judgment passed by the Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala as alleged by the applicant.

¶38

Admittedly 3 items of properties are mortgaged as security for the facilities availed, and out of which the 2^nd and 3^rd items of properties in Annexure-A2 belong to Mr.Haseena Shoukathali and Kunharammu respectively and no challenge was raised by those guarantors/owners of the property. Therefore the relief made by the applicant is not maintainable on the aforesaid ground itself since the applicant has sought for interference of this Tribunal in respect of all the measures initiated by the defendant bank in respect of all items of properties. The present attempt of the applicant challenging the SARFAESI measures initiated by the defendant bank by filing the above application on the ground of agricultural nature is absolutely without any bonafides and only to protract/delay the recovery measures. There is no merit in the photographs produced by the applicant to substantiate the agricultural nature of the property in order to claim the exception under Section 31(i) and could not be relied upon. Hence this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the above S.A. with the cost to the defendant.

¶39

The defendant filed additional Written Statement dated 28.04.2023 contending as follows :

¶40

All the averments, contentions, statements and allegations contained in the above amended S.A are denied by the defendant except those which are specifically admitted hereunder. The applicant is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for in the above amended S.A on several grounds.

¶41

Even though a notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed Section 14 can be a cause of action for filing application under Section 17, the primary requirement in an application under Section 17 is that there must be a challenge with regard to any of the ‘measures’ initiated by the secured creditor under the provisions of SARFAESI Act. It is the settled position that filing of Section 14 application and also passing of order in an application under Section

¶42

Page 5 of 13

¶43

SA No.108 of 2022

¶44

14 can be a measure and the same can be a subject matter under challenge in an application under Section 17. However any notice which was issued in pursuant to the order passed by the CJM Court issued by the Advocate Commissioner alone cannot be a subject matter of challenge or it can be never treated as a ‘measure’ under the purview of Section 17 of the Act. Other words the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner is not a measure as envisaged under the Act or rules initiated by the secured creditor. Therefore none of the reliefs added by way of amendments in the application are not maintainable and within the scope of adjudication of Section 17 of the Act. The applicant has simply stated that the affidavit filed by the defendant under Section 14 before the CJM Court is not in accordance with the provisions, without producing any document. Hence this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the above S.A with the cost to the defendant.

¶45

The point arising for consideration is as to whether the applicant is entitled to get the reliefs sought for in this S.A.

¶46

Point: The availment of CCOL, ECLGS and FITTL COVID Moratorium facilities from the defendant bank upon creation of equitable mortgage over the immovable properties in favour of the defendant Bank has been admitted by the applicant in the SA. The applicant has averred in para 3 of the SA that after receipt of the demand notice he approached the defendant and stated the circumstances that lead to the default in making payment. The applicant after having admitted his default in repayment of the outstanding loan due to the defendant bank, has subsequently averred under the grounds of appeal in the SA that classification of the loans as Non Performing of Asset is arbitrary and illegal since the credit facilities were operating within the permitting limits.

¶47

The defendant has averred in his written statement that since the borrower committed default in repayment of the facilities, the defendant was constrained to declare the loan accounts as NPA in accordance with the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. The applicant has not produced any material before this Tribunal to prove his contention that the credit facilities were operating within the permitting limits. Therefore the contention of the applicant that classification of the loan accounts of the applicant as Non Performing Asset is illegal and arbitrary, does not hold good.

¶48

The applicant has averred in the SA that the Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala directed not to take coercive steps in the pandemic situation and that Annexure-A1 notice was issued at the time of Lock Down in the State. The specific direction was passed in

¶49

Page 6 of 13

¶50

SA No.108 of 2022

¶51

the above cited case is “ coercive steps’ should not be resorted to during the Covid-19 pandemic period. The defendant issued the demand notice, Annexure-A1 only on 08.11.2021, ie., to say after the Covid-19 lock down period. In any event, the object of sending demand notice to the borrowers/guarantors is to call upon them to pay the outstanding loan within the specified period. Therefore issuance of demand notice cannot be construed as a coercive step. Hence the contention of the applicant that Annexure-A1 demand notice was issued at the time of lock down in the State does not hold good.

¶52

The receipt of demand notice Annexure-A1 has been admitted by the applicant. Admittedly, the applicant neither sent any representation/objection in writing to the defendant nor did he discharge the outstanding loan due. Hence the defendant was constrained to issue the possession notice dated 02.03.2022, Annexure-A2. In the possession notice, Annexure-A2, the details of the secured asset such as extent of property, constructions therein with survey Nos. and boundaries have been clearly furnished under the caption of description of “immovable properties”. Therefore, this Tribunal does not find any force in the contention of the applicant that the defendant has not shown the details of the property in AnnexureA2 possession notice.

¶53

The defendant has produced copy of publications Annexure-B4 to show that the possession notice Annexure-A2 was published in Malayala Manorama daily dated 8.3.2022 and The Hindu daily dated 8.3.2022 which are having wide circulation. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that possession notice was not published in two dailies as per the statute is liable to be rejected.

¶54

The main contention raised by the applicant in the SA is that the first item property mentioned in Annexure-A2 and B schedule in Annexure-A1, are agricultural properties which are exempted under Sec.31(i) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. He has produced photographs Annexure-A3 in support of his above contention. The rival contention of the defendant in his written statement is that secured asset is not agricultural property and that the exemption provided under Sec.31(i) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is applicable only if the secured asset was agricultural property at the time of creating the security interest and that at the time of availment of credit facility and that the applicant himself gave a specific undertaking/declaration before the defendant Bank that property is not agricultural in nature and usage. To prove his above contention he has produced copy of declaration dated 19.01.2019.

¶55

Page 7 of 13

¶56

SA No.108 of 2022

¶57

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in “ Indian Bank and another Vs. K. Pappireddiyar and another {2018 (4) KHC 86 } as follows:

¶58

“ the classification of land in the revenue records as agricultural is not dispositive or conclusive of the question whether the SARFAESI Act does or does not apply. Whether a parcel of land is agricultural must be deduced as a matter of fact from the nature of the land, the use to which it was being put on the date of the creation of the security interest and the purpose for which it was set apart.”

¶59

Apart from the photographs, Annexure-A3, the applicant has not produced any material before this Tribunal to show that secured asset was the agricultural property on the date of creation of security interest over the same, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case.

¶60

In “ Sharada Flour Products Pvt Ltd. Vs. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. {2018 (3) KLT 900 , the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has categorically held that a security interest created in a particular item of the property for the availing of loan itself would show that the parties did not treat the land as agricultural land and that the debtor offered the land as security disregarding its nature. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in its judgment in “ ITC Ltd. Vs. Blue Coast Hotel Ltd and others {2018 SCC online SC 237}” the provision under Sec.31(i) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 will not extend to an agricultural property that was willingly mortgaged for loans. It will be pertinent to reproduce herein the exact observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cited case.

¶61

“ Obviously, since no security interest can be created in respect of agricultural lands and yet it was so created, goes to show that the parties did not treat the land as agricultural land and that the debtor offered the land as security on this basis”.

¶62

Even assuming for argument sake without admitting that, the secured asset offered by the applicant is agricultural property, he is not entitled to claim the exemption under Sec.31(i) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in the light of the dictum laid down in the afore cited judgments.

¶63

The applicant has produced photographs Annexure-A3 to prove his contention that secured asset is agricultural property. No reliance can be placed upon Annexure-A3 for the following reasons:

¶64

Page 8 of 13

¶65

SA No.108 of 2022

¶66

(a) Annexure-A3 does not and cannot reflect as to whether the photographs are pertaining to the secured asset.

¶67

(b) The mere existence of some plantains, coconut trees etc. in the land cannot give raise to the fact that the land is agricultural land.

¶68

Now the issue as to whether the secured asset is agricultural property as contended by the applicant has to be analyzed in a proper perspective. The defendant has produced the copy of possession certificate, Annexure-B2 series which had been submitted by the applicant to the defendant Bank at the time of availment of credit facilities. In Annexure-B2 series, the class of the lands “secured asset” has been described as ‘dry land’. In the copy of the valuation report dated 17.01.2019 Annexure-B3 produced by the defendant, the secured asset has been described as plain levelled land. Thus it is evident as per Annexure-B1 series and B2 series, the secured asset is the dry land.

¶69

It is seen from the perusal of Annexure-B1 which is titled as Deed of declaration from the mortgagor that the above signed declaration has been submitted by the applicant to the defendant bank on 19.01.2019 at the time of availment of credit facilities. In para 4 of Annexure-B1 the applicant has declared as follows:

¶70

“That I/WE hereby declare that above said immovable property is non agricultural in nature & usage and shall continue to be in non agricultural usage until the full tenure of the loan. That I/WE shall be precluded from taking any contrary view as to the nature & usage of the land at any time during the tenure of the loan so as to affect enforcement of the above property under any applicable law.”

¶71

In Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Icharam alias Brijram and others (AIR 1974 SC 471) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions and that the former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. In the present case on hand, the petitioner has voluntarily declared in Annx.B3, Deed of Declaration that the secured asset is not agricultural property. Therefore the petitioner having executed Annx.B1 cannot turn around now and contend that the secured asset is agricultural property. As per the dictum laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the admission of the petitioner that secured asset is not agricultural property does not require any evidentiary proof.

¶72

Page 9 of 13

¶73

SA No.108 of 2022

¶74

The applicant has averred in the SA that along with the CMP, the defendant bank has not filed the affidavit including all the details with regard to the loan and that order was passed by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri without looking into the merits, in mechanical way. The defendant had contended in its additional written statement even though a notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 can be a cause of action for filing application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, the primary requirement in an application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 is that there must be a challenge with regard to any of the measures initiated by the secured creditor under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and that filing of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, application and passing of order under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 can be a measure and that the same can be a subject matter under challenge in an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and that however, any notice in pursuance to the order passed by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, issued by the Advocate Commissioner alone cannot be a subject matter of challenge or it can never be treated as a measure under the purview of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and that therefore none of the reliefs sought for in the amended S.A are not maintainable.

¶75

The provisions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 reads as follows:

¶76

“S.14 - Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset;

¶77

(1) Where the possession of any secured assets is required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any of the secured asset is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under the provisions of this Act, the secured creditor may, for the purpose of taking possession or control of any such secured asset, request, in writing, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such secured asset or other documents relating thereto may be situated or found, to take possession thereof, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or, as the case may be, the District Magistrate shall, on such request being made to him —

¶78

(a) take possession of such asset and documents relating thereto; and

¶79

(b) forward such assets and documents to the secured creditor.

¶80

Page 10 of 13

¶81

SA No.108 of 2022

¶82

[Provided that any application by the secured creditor shall be accompanied by an affidavit duly affirmed by the authorized officer of the secured creditor, declaring that-

¶83

(i) the aggregate amount of financial assistance granted and the total claim of the bank as on the date of filing the application;

¶84

(ii) the borrower has created security interest over various properties and that the Bank or Financial Institution is holding a valid and subsisting security interest over such properties and the claim of the Bank or the Financial is within the limitation period;

¶85

(iii) the borrower has created security interest over various properties giving the details of properties referred to in the sub-clause (ii) above;

¶86

(iv) the borrower has committed default in repayment of the financial assistance granted aggregating the specified amount;

¶87

(v) consequent upon such default in repayment of the financial assistance the account of the borrower has been classified as a non performing asset;

¶88

(vi) affirming that the period of sixty days' notice as required by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 13, demanding payment of the defaulted financial assistance has been served on the borrower;

¶89

(vii) the objection and representation in reply to the notice received from the borrower has been considered by the secured creditor and the reasons for non-acceptance of such objection or representation had been communicated to the borrower;

¶90

(viii) the borrower has not made any repayment of the financial assistance in spite of the above notice and the Authorised Officer is, therefore, entitled to take possession of the secured assets under the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 13 read with section 14 of the principal Act;

¶91

(ix) that the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under had been complied with:

¶92

Page 11 of 13

¶93

SA No.108 of 2022

¶94

If the secured creditor has omitted to state the details as referred to under Section 14 (1) (i) to (ix) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in his affidavit which is filed before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court/District Magistrate and if nevertheless if order is passed for taking physical possession of the secured asset, such order is liable to be set aside by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in view of non-compliance of the above mandatory requirements stipulated under Section 14 (1) (i) to (ix) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. It cannot be disputed that in the present case, the applicant has not produced copies of the petition or affidavit and the order passed by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri in CMP or in M.C along with the amended SA. The applicant has produced only the copy of the Advocate Commissioner notice, Annexure-A4. If the applicant had produced at least the copy of the order passed by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri in CMP or in M.C, the Tribunal would have been in a position to find out as to whether the defendant omitted to furnish the aforesaid details in his affidavit filed along with the petition under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. It is the bounden duty of the applicant who disputes that affidavit was not filed by the defendant in the CMP before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri, to prove his above contention. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that the defendant has not filed the affidavit including all the details with regard to the loan has no leg to stand.

¶95

As rightly contended by the side of the defendant, Advocate Commissioner notice Annexure-A4 cannot be a subject matter of challenge or it can never be treated as a measure under the purview of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 since it has been issued pursuant to the order passed by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,, Manjeri in CMP or M.C. Therefore, this Tribunal holds that the issuance of notice, Annexure-A4 by the Advocate Commissioner cannot be construed as a measure as contemplated under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶96

In view of the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal holds that the applicant is not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in this SA. In the result, S.A No. 108 of 2022 stands dismissed. No costs.

¶97

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14^th June, 2023.

¶98

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 12 of 13

SA No.108 of 2022

List of documents filed by the Applicant along with the S.A.

¶103

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	08.11.2021	True copy ofthe demandnotice.	Annexure-A1
2.	02.03.2022	True copy of the possession notice	Annexure-A2
3.	---	Photographs of the property.	Annexure-A3
4.	20.03.2023	True copy of the Advocate Commissioner notice.	Annexure-A4

¶104

List of documents filed by the Defendant Bank along with the Written Statement

¶105

SL. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	19.01.2019	Copy of declaration made by the applicant	Annexure-B1
2.	31.10.2018	Copy ofpossessioncertificate	Annexure-B2
3.	17.01.2019	Copy of valuation report taken at the time of availment ofthe creditfacility.	Annexure-B3
4.	08.03.2022	Copy of publications in Malayala Manorama daily and The Hindu daily in respect ofpossession notice.	Annexure-B4

¶106

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶107

Mj/

¶108

Page 13 of 13

Shoukath Ali v. South Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shoukath Ali v. South Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus Messers Sing and Sing

Union Bank of India versus Milind

Sanjeev Gajanan Jagtap versus Central Bank of India

Santhosh Kumar Nair Mn versus Hdfc Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Nivedita Das Lahon

Bank of India versus M/s Eco-gadi Taxi Services and Others