Dismissed

Sunil v. Kerala State Cooperative Bank Ltd.

DRT30 Oct 2025SA/188/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Kerala dismissed an application filed by a loan defaulters challenging securitization proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal found no illegality or irregularity in the proceedings as the appellants failed to establish any violation of statutory compliance despite allegations of non-repayment and eviction attempts.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application is dismissed without costs.

Sunil versus Kerala State Cooperative Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Dated this the 30^th day of October, 2025

¶4

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.188/2022

¶5

Between

¶6

Sunil, S/o. Paramu, Aged 46, Kozhissery House, Kaipamangalam Desom, Kaipamangalam Village, Kodungallur Taluk, Thrissur District. …Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

The Authorised Officer, Kerala State Co-op Bank Sahakarana Sapthadimandiram, Kovilakathupadam, Thrissur – 680 022.

¶9

The Branch Manager, Kerala State Co-op Bank, Perinjanam Branch, Perinjanam, Thrissur District, PIN - 680 686. … Defendants

¶10

This Securitization Application having been heard on

¶11

29.10.2025 in the presence of Advocate Ms. M.R. Reena for the

¶12

applicant and Advocate Shri. Gilbert George Correya for the defendants and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:

¶13

SA 188/2022

¶14

¶15

F I N A L O R D E R

¶16

Challenging the securitization proceeding initiated by the defendants under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act’), the applicant in the subject matter property, has filed this SA under S.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶17

Brief facts of the case :

¶18

The applicant had availed a housing loan from the defendants an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) in the year 2017, which was renewed in the year 2019 for a term of 10 years by mortgaging the subject matter property. After availing the loan, the applicant was remitting the instalments regularly. But due to Covid Pandemic, he could not repay the loan. The defendants initiated the securitization proceeding by issuing a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. After receipt of the same, the applicant approached the bank by submitting a representation to give some breathing time to repay the loan. But the defendants did not pay any heed to the request and proceeded under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court to take physical possession of the secured asset. The applicant has filed the SA claiming that the entire securitization proceeding is illegal and erroneous due to

¶19

SA 188/2022

¶20

¶21

non-compliance of the statutory requirements and hence prayed to set aside the entire proceedings.

¶22

The defendants contested the claim by filing written statement denying the averments and claimed that there is no illegality in the securitization proceeding. All the statutory measures are duly followed. The relevant documents are produced in this case. In absence of any illegality, interference with the securitization proceeding is not warranted. Hence the SA, being devoid of any merit, may be dismissed.

¶23

From the respective case of the applicant and defendants, the following points are emerged for adjudication in this case:

¶24

(i) Whether the securitization proceeding initiated by the defendants suffer from any illegality or irregularity to intervene with the same?

¶25

(ii) Whether the applicant is entitled to get any relief in this case?

¶26

FINDINGS:

¶27

Point No.(i) & (ii):-

¶28

Both the points being interlinked with each other, are taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the applicant availed loan from the defendants. But due to non-repayment, the defendants initiated securitization proceeding. All the relevant

¶29

SA 188/2022

¶30

¶31

documents are produced by the defendants regarding compliance of the statutory requirement. The applicant has failed to establish any illegality in such proceeding to interdict with the same. In absence of any illegality, the applicant is not entitled to get any relief in this case. Both the points are answered against the applicant.

¶32

Hence it is Ordered:-

¶33

ORDER

¶34

In view of the foregoing reasons the SA, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. But in the circumstances, without costs.

¶35

(Dictated to my PA, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 30^th day of October, 2025).

¶36

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶37

Documents on the part of the applicants

¶38

Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
Annexure-A1	10.02.2022	True copy of the representation submitted to the Manager.
Annexure-A2 Doc	08.03.2022 uments on th	Possession notice issued to the applicant. e part of the defendants
Annexure-D1		True copy of the Demand Notice to the Applicant/Guarantor along with the translation.
Annexure- D1(a)	29.01.2019	Acknowledgment cards evidencing the service of demand notice.
Annexure-D2	08.03.2022	True copy of the 13(4) notice undersigned by the applicant/guarantor issued by the bank along with the translation.
Annexure-D3		True copy of the Statement of accounts.

¶39

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶40

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶41

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶42

Dated the 30^th October, 2025

¶43

SA No.188/2022

¶44

Between

¶45

Sunil, S/o. Paramu, Aged 46, Kozhissery House, Kaipamangalam Desom, Kaipamangalam Village, Kodungallur Taluk, Thrissur District. …Applicant

¶46

And

¶47

The Authorised Officer, Kerala State Co-op Bank Sahakarana Sapthadimandiram, Kovilakathupadam, Thrissur – 680 022 & Anr.

¶48

…Defendants

¶49

F I N A L O R D E R

Sunil v. Kerala State Cooperative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil v. Kerala State Cooperative 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

Indian Overseas Bank versus Kamaljit Singh

Ms General Trading Company versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Piara Singh

Ms R S Belvedere versus the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited

Ms Parwati Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. and others versus Bank of Baroda

Standard Chartered Bank versus M/s Nanma Marketing Pvt. Ltd.