Dismissed

Joy M P v. Muvattupuhza Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

DRT7 Aug 2025SA/13/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Discounting the applicants challenge to regular procedure, DRT dismissed their securities application seeking to cancel notices and orders from the bank.

What did the court decide?

Request for setting aside demand notice, magistrate order, and possession notice dismissed; no order on costs.

What the court decided

Joy M P versus Muvattupuhza Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 07^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶4

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

¶5

SA No. 13 of 2022

¶6

Between

¶7

Joy M.P., S/o. M.S. Puravathu, Mallasseril Kizhakkeveedu House, Ramamangalam, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam – 686 663.

¶8

Eldhose M. Joy, S/o. Joy M.P., Mallasseril Kizhakkeveedu House, Ramamangalam, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam – 686 663.

¶9

Meenu Joy, D/o. Joy M.P., Mallasseril Kizhakkeveedu House, Ramamangalam, Muvattupuzha,

¶10

Ernakulam – 686 663.

¶11

--- Applicants

¶12

And

¶13

The Authorized Officer, Deputy General Manager, Muvattupuzha Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Head Office, Kacherithazham, Muvattupuzha – 686 661.

¶14

--- Defendant

¶15

This Securitization Application coming on 08.05.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mr. George Kuruvilla, Counsel appearing for the Applicants and Mr. Sajeev K. Gopal, Counsel appearing for the defendant and upon hearing arguments of learned

¶16

SA No.13 of 2022

¶17

Counsels for all the parties and upon perusing the material on records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Securitisation Application was filed on 09.12.2021 seeking to set aside Annexure-A2 demand notice, Annexure-A5 order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (MPs/MLAs) Court, Ernakulam, Annexure-A notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner, AnnexureA13 Possession Notice and Annexure-A14 sale notice, till the disposal of the S.A.

¶20

Availment of a loan of Rs.30 Lakhs by the 1^st applicant from the defendant bank upon creation of equitable mortgage over his property admeasuring 44.92 Ares situated in Sy. No.629/6 of Ramamangalam village, Muvattupuzha Taluk and default in repayment of the outstanding loan due is admitted by the applicants in the SA.

¶21

According to the defendant, default in repayment of the outstanding loan due, the loan account of the 1^st applicant came to be classified as Non-Performing Asset. Therefore, Annexure-A2 demand notice dated 08.04.2019 was issued to the applicants calling upon them to repay the outstanding loan due within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the demand notice. The applicants neither sent any objection/representation to the demand notice nor did they clear off their liability due to the defendant bank.

¶22

Thereafter, the defendant approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and filed Annexure-A3 application and affidavit and additional affidavit Annexure-A4 (a) to A4 (e) u/s 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002. Annexure-A5 order dated 10.11.2021 came to be passed appointing Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner issued Annexure-A6 notice to the applicants informing them that he would take physical possession of the secured asset on or after 09.12.2021.

¶23

Subsequently, Possession Notice dated 21.01.2022 AnnexureB1 was issued for symbolically taking physical possession of the secured asset. The defendant also issued Annexure-B4 sale notice dated 27.01.2022. Sale was not fructified for want of bidders. Therefore, another sale notice dated 07.03.2022 Annexure-B5 was issued. It appears that sale was not fructified for want of bidders. It is pertinent to point out herein that the applicants have not averred

¶24

Page 2 of 8

¶25

SA No.13 of 2022

¶26

anything in the SA with regard to issuance of the aforesaid sale notices.

¶27

The applicants having aggrieved against the aforesaid measures, have filed this SA seeking for the reliefs stated supra.

¶28

The counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the secured asset agricultural land and that Annexure-A7 certificate, A8 location sketch and A9 land tax receipt shows that the secured asset is agricultural land. The details of the amount payable by the applicants is not stated in Annexure-A2 demand notice and the description of the property in Annexure-A2 demand notice is also not correct.

¶29

It is submitted further by the counsel for the applicants that the total outstanding amount mentioned in Annexure-A3 application and the total outstanding amount of the defendant bank mentioned in Annexure-A4 (a) to A4 (e) affidavits is incorrect. Annexure-A4 (e) affidavit does not state that the outstanding amount mentioned in earlier affidavit is not correct. None of the affidavits satisfies the mandatory declarations required to be made as per Clause (i) to (ix) to the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002. Therefore Annexure-A5 order passed in MC No.66/2020 and consequent issuance of Annexure-A6 notice is liable to be set aside.

¶30

The applicants have not specifically pointed out in the SA as to how the details of the outstanding amount mentioned in Annexure-A2 demand notice is not correct. They have also not pointed out as to how the description of the property in the demand notice is incorrect. Annexure-A1 produced by the applicants is the title deed pertaining to the secured asset. A perusal of the same shows that the existence of the residential house is not mentioned in the description schedule to the title deed. The applicants did not send any objection/ representation to the demand notice raising the aforesaid issues. Therefore, the applicants are not entitled to take the pleas that the amount and the description of the property mentioned in AnnexureA2 demand notice.

¶31

The applicants relied upon Annexure-A7 to A9 in order to prove their contention that secured asset is agricultural land. Annexure-A7 is the certificate issued by the Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Ramamangalam which reads that coconut trees, arecanut and plantains are cultivated in the land. There is no mention in AnnexureA7 certificate as to when he inspected the property. He has also not

¶32

Page 3 of 8

¶33

SA No.13 of 2022

¶34

noted the approximate age and number of the trees which are said to have been cultivated in the property. Above all, there is no mention in Annexure-A7 as to whether the property was the agricultural property on the date of creation of security interest over the same. Hence no reliance can be placed upon in Annexure-A7.

¶35

Annexure-A8 location sketch shows the existence of irrigation canal. The mere running of the irrigation canal through the north western corner of the property does not indicate that secured asset is agricultural land. In Annexure-A9 land receipt, the property is described as ‘Purayidom. Hence it is evident that the secured asset is not an agricultural property.

¶36

The applicants filed IA No.1678/23 praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner in order to ascertain as to whether the secured asset is agricultural property. This Tribunal dismissed the above petition holding that since no material was produced to prove that the secured asset was agricultural property on the date of creation of security interest over the same. The applicants having aggrieved against the above order preferred OP (DRT) No.275/23 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. Judgment dated 04.08.2023 came to be passed upholding the above view of this Tribunal. The applicants did not prefer any appeal against the above judgment. Therefore, the applicants are estopped from raising the same contention now before this Tribunal that secured asset is agricultural property.

¶37

The defendant has produced Annexure-B2 and B3 copies of paper publications in order to prove his contention that Annexure-B1 possession notice was published in Kerala Kaumudi, Kochi edition dated 25.01.2022 and in Indian Express edition dated 25.01.2022. The applicants have not raised any issues with regard to issuance of Annexure-B1 possession notice.

¶38

The defendant filed five affidavits as Annexure-A4 (a) to A4 (e) along with Annexure-A3 application in MC No.66/2020 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam. According to the defendant, Annexure-A4 (a) is the affidavit and Annexure-A4 (b) to A4 (e) are additional affidavits and additional affidavits were filed pursuant to the direction given by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam, since the outstanding loan due on the date of filing of the previous affidavit is not correct.

¶39

Page 4 of 8

¶40

SA No.13 of 2022

¶41

In Annexure-A3 application the date of total outstanding amount of Rs.32,50,457/- is not mentioned. The space for mentioning the date has been left blank. In Annexure-A4 (a) to A4 (e) affidavits the total claim of the bank is differently mentioned. It is the submission of the counsel for the defendant that the difference in the amount is due to the reason that affidavits were filed on different periods and that therefore the amount with accrued interest was mentioned in subsequent affidavits.

¶42

Be that it may so, now it has to be analysed as to whether the defendant has complied with mandatory requirement of Clause (i) to the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 which mandates to mention the aggregate amount of financial assistance granted and the total claim of the bank as on the date of filing of the application.

¶43

In Annexure-A4 (e) affidavit which is said to have been filed finally, it is stated that the total outstanding as on 11.12.2019 is Rs.35,30,000/-. It cannot be disputed that Annexure-A3 application was filed on 11.12.2019. It appears that since the correct outstanding loan amount as on the date of filing of the application was omitted to be mentioned in the application, direction was given to the defendant learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam to file additional affidavits.

¶44

A perusal of Annexure-A3 application and Annexure-A4 series affidavits shows that statutory requirements contemplated under Clause (i) to (ix) to the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 has been duly complied with by the defendant. A perusal of Annexure-A5 order shows that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam after having perused the contents of the affidavits and the documents filed in support of the affidavit and having satisfied over the same passed order to appoint Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. Therefore, this Tribunal does not find any merit in the submission of the counsel for the applicants that Annexure-A5 order is not a speaking order.

¶45

In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, this Tribunal finds that there is no procedural irregularity or illegality with regard to the issuance of Annexure-A2 demand notice, Annexure-B1 possession notice and filing of Annexure-A3 application and A4 series affidavits and Annexure-A5 order passed in MC No.66/2020 for taking physical possession of the secured asset. Therefore, the applicants have failed

¶46

Page 5 of 8

¶47

SA No.13 of 2022

¶48

to prove their case so as to get the reliefs sought for in the SA. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal holds that the applicants are not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in this SA.

¶49

Resultantly, S.A No.13 of 2022 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 07^th day of August, 2025.

¶51

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶52

Page 6 of 8

¶53

SA No.13 of 2022

¶54

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

¶55

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	08.02.1999	True copy of the sale deed No.344/1999 ofSROPiravom.	Annexure-A1
2.	08.04.2019	True copy of the Demand Notice issued by the defendant.	Annexure-A2
3.	11.12.2019	True copy of application in MC No.66 of 2020 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (MPs/MLAs) Court, Ernakulam	Annexure-A3
4.	11.12.2019	True copy of the affidavit filed by Authorized Officer Shanty M.A. in support of Annexure-A3 application.	Annexure- A4(a)
5.	06.01.2020	True copy of the additional affidavit filed by Authorized Officer Shanty M.A. insupport of Annexure-A3 application.	Annexure- A4(b)
6.	10.03.2020	True copy of the additional affidavit filed by Authorized Officer Shanty M.A. insupport of Annexure-A3 application.	Annexure- A4(c)
7.	17.08.2021	True copy of the additional affidavit filed by Authorized Officer Shanty M.A. in support of Annexure-A3 application.	Annexure- A4(d)
8.	02.11.2021	True copy of the additional affidavit filed by Authorized Officer Shanty M.A. insupport of Annexure-A3 application.	Annexure- A4(e)
9.	10.11.2021	True copy of order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (MPs/MLAs) Court,Ernakulam in MC 66/2020	Annexure-A5
10.	24.11.2021	True copy of the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner.	Annexure-A6
11.	01.12.2021	True copy of the certificate issued by the Agriculture Officer, Krishibhavan Ramamangalam.	Annexure-A7
12.	02.08.2017	True copy of location sketch in respect of the Applicants’property	Annexure-A8
13.	26.08.2021	True copy of the land tax receipt in respect oftheApplicants’property.	Annexure-A9
14.	20.12.2021	True copy of the interim order of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in OP (DRT) No.317/2021.	Annexure-A10

¶56

Page 7 of 8

¶57

SA No.13 of 2022

¶58

15.	02.02.2022	True copy of the receipt showing payment of Rs.1 lakh.	Annexure- A11(a)
16.	07.03.2022	True copy of the receipt showing payment of Rs.2lakh.	Annexure- A11(b)
17.	09.06.2022	True copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in OP (DRT)No.317/2021.	Annexure-A12
18.	21.01.2022	True copy of the Possession Notice	Annexure-A13
19.	07.03.2022	True copy of auction sale notice issued by the Defendant Bank.	Annexure-A14

¶59

List of documents filed by the defendant along with the written statement

¶60

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	21.01.2022	True copy of the Possession Notice issued byDefendantBank.	Annexure-B1
2.	---	True English translation of Anx.B1	Annexure- B1(a)
3.	25.01.2022	True copy of paper publication effected in KeralaKaumudi,Kochiedition.	Annexure-B2
4.	25.01.2022	True copy of paper publication effected in Indian Express daily.	Annexure-B3
5.	27.01.2022	True copy of the auction notice fixing the sale on05.03.2022.	Annexure-B4
6.	---	True English translation of Anx.B4	Annexure- B4(a)
7.	07.03.2022	True copy of the notice for sale.	Annexure-B5
8.	---	True English translation of Anx.B5	Annexure- B5(a)

¶61

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶62

Page 8 of 8

Joy M P v. Muvattupuhza Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Joy M P v. Muvattupuhza Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Kakkar Fashion

Punjab National Bank versus Rakesh Singh Pundir

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Pargal Confectionary and Snacks India Private Limited

Davinder Kaur versus State Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus Deorali Speciality Tea Private Limited and Ors.

Federal Bank Ltd. versus Sogy Peter