Dismissed

Anilkumar v. Bank of Baroda

DRT11 Jun 2025SA/208/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Securitization Application, the applicant challenged the bank's possession proceedings under SARFAESI Act Section 14 and sought loan restructuring. The Tribunal upheld the bank's compliance with Section 14 and dismissed the application, holding that restructuring reliefs fall under Section 13(4) which were not invoked.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Anilkumar versus Bank of Baroda — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 11^th DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶4

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

¶5

S.A No. 208 of 2025

¶6

Between

¶7

Anilkumar, S/o. Balan Nambiar, M 26, A 31 KSHB Colony, Malaparamba P.O., Kozhikode – 673 009.

¶8

--- Applicant

¶9

And

¶10

Bank of Baroda, Cheruty Road Branch, Kozhikode District, Rep by its Authorized Officer, P.B. No.6, Pramod Building, Cheruty Road, Kozhikode – 673 001.

¶11

--- Defendant

¶12

This Securitization Application coming on 29.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Ms. M.R. Reena, Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Mr. Bepin Vijayan Counsel appearing 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

SA No.208 of 2025

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This Securitisation Application was filed on 18.03.2025 praying to declare that the initiation of the proceedings under Annexure-A14, A15 and A16 are null and void and to direct the defendant to consider the restructure measures and the benefit declared by RBI as well as Central Govt. in view of Covid-19 pandemic situation and to direct the defendant to consider the representation submitted by the applicant to pay the overdue amount by installments and to regularize the loan account and give a direction to the defendant not to include the expenses and the incidental charges on the applicant’s account and to direct the defendant to pay costs of this proceedings to the applicant.

¶16

The applicant has admitted the availment of credit facilities from the defendant bank upon creation of Equitable mortgage by deposit of title deed of his immovable property comprised in Re.Sy.No.187/2 of Chevayur village, Kozhikode District. The applicant has also admitted his default in repayment of the outstanding loan due.

¶17

It is the contention of the defendant in the written statement that, in view of the default committed by the applicant in repayment of the outstanding loan due, separate demand notice was issued to the applicant and the co-borrowers calling upon them to discharge the liability within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the demand notice. Though the applicant has not specifically averred in the SA with regard to issuance and receipt of the demand notice, he has not refuted the above averment of the defendant. Therefore, it is evident that the applicant received the demand notice. The applicant has not disclosed in the SA as to whether he sent any objection/ representation to the demand notice.

¶18

Subsequently, the defendant approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kozhikode and filed Annexure-A14 application and affidavit under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. AnnexureA15 Order dated 20.12.2024 came to be passed in CMP 3386/2024 appointing Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner issued Annexure-A16 notice dated 07.01.2025 to the applicant and other co-borrowers informing them that he would take physical possession of the secured asset on 20.01.2025. The applicant having aggrieved against the above measures has filed this SA seeking for the reliefs stated supra.

¶19

The applicant has not raised any contention in the SA as to whether Annexure-A14 application and affidavit filed in CMP No.3386/2024 is not in consonance with the statutory requirements

¶20

Page 2 of 5

¶21

SA No.208 of 2025

¶22

contemplated under Clause (i) to (ix) to the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002. On perusal of Annexure-A14 affidavit shows that all the statutory requirements contemplated under Clause (i) to (ix) to the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 has been complied with by the defendant bank. A perusal of Annexure-A15 order shows that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kozhikode after having perused the contents of the affidavit and the documents filed in support of the affidavit and after having satisfied over the same, passed order appointing Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. This Tribunal does not find any infirmity or illegality in the above order.

¶23

The other reliefs sought for by the applicant in the SA are to consider the representation submitted by the applicant to pay the overdue amount by installments and to regularize the loan account. The above reliefs sought for by the applicant do not fall under any of the category of the measures referred to in Sec.13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act 2002. It is for the applicant to approach the defendant bank for getting these reliefs.

¶24

The applicant has failed to prove his case so as to get the reliefs sought for in the SA. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal holds that the applicant is not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in this SA.

¶25

Resultantly, S.A No.208 of 2025 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11^th day of June, 2025.

¶27

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 3 of 5

SA No.208 of 2025

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

¶32

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	13.03.2024	True copy of the judgment in WP(C) No. 9036/2024 of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala	Annexure-A1
2.	08.08.2024	True copy of the receipt of Rs.3,15,464/-	Annexure-A2
3.	04.10.2024	True copy of the order in IA No.1/2024 in WP(C) No. 9036/2024 of the Hon’ble HighCourt of Kerala.	Annexure-A3
4.	08.10.2024	True copy of the receipt of Rs.2,00,000/-.	Annexure-A4
5.	19.12.2024	True copy of the order in IA No.1/2024 in WP(C) No. 9036/2024 of the Hon’ble HighCourt of Kerala.	Annexure-A5
6.	06.01.2025	True copy of the receipt of Rs.2,00,000/-	Annexure-A6
7.	07.01.2025	True copy of the order in IA No.1/2024 in WP(C) No. 9036/2024 of the Hon’ble HighCourt of Kerala.	Annexure-A7
8.	17.01.2025	True copy of the order in IA No.1/2024 in WP(C) No. 9036/2024 of the Hon’ble HighCourt of Kerala.	Annexure-A8
9.	13.02.2025	True copy of the receipt of Rs.5,00,000/-.	Annexure-A9
10.	18.02.2025	True copy of the order in IA No.1/2024 in WP(C) No. 9036/2024 of the Hon’ble HighCourt of Kerala.	Annexure-A10
11.	18.02.2025 26.02.2025 27.02.2025	True copy of the receipts of Rs.5,00,000/-	Annexure-A11
12.	2.02.2025	True copy of the disposal order in IA No.1/2024 in WP(C) No. 9036/2024 of theHon’bleHighCourt of Kerala.	Annexure-A12
13.	10.03.2025	True copy of the representation submitted by the applicant to the defendant	Annexure-A13
14.	16.12.2024	True copy of the affidavit and application filed by the defendant bank before the CJM court, Kozhikode in CMP No.3386/2024.	Annexure-A14

¶33

Page 4 of 5

¶34

SA No.208 of 2025

¶35

15.	20.12.2024	Tre copy of the order in CMP No.3386/2024 by the CJM Court, Kozhikode.	Annexure-A15
16.	07.01.2025	True copy of the notice of the Advocate	Annexure-A16
		Commissioner in CMP No.3386/2024 by the CJMCourt,Kozhikode.

¶36

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶37

Mj/

¶38

Page 5 of 5

Anilkumar v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anilkumar v. Bank of Baroda

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

Autocross Private Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director versus South Indian Bank

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Rohan Rawat

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Capsag Consulting Services Private Limited

ms E Fast Transports LLP versus South Indian Bank

Uco Bank versus Sri Biprajit Deb And Ors.

Hasina Bibi versus State Bank of India