This Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application challenging a bank's possession notice on the grounds that it was filed beyond the statutory time limit, rendering the application incompetent despite the applicant's locus standi.
Application and Internal Applications dismissed; parties to bear respective costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, AT BANGALORE
Dated this 29th day of August 2025
PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER
in
SA No.222 of 2024
BETWEEN:
… Applicants
Vs.
AND:
1, M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., 7th Floor, Plot No.7, Sector 125, Noida-201313, Uttar Pradesh Rep. by its Authorised Officer
| Ld. Counsels on | record | / appeared :- |
|---|---|---|
| For Applicant | :- | Smt. D. Kavitha |
| For Respondent | :- |
M/s. Fx & Co., ……. |
:ORDER:
1st respondent bank and the measures leading to the same is under challenge in this Securitization Application (SA) filed under section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 ( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
The applicant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and respondent No.2 are children of Late Kariyappa and the 2nd applicant. It is also contended that, the property sought to be proceeded against is the joint family property consisting of the applicants, Late Kariyappa and the respondent No.2. It is also the case of the applicant that, the
3 SA/222/2024
applicant No.1 had filed a suit as OS96/2012 before the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Mysuru on 18.01.2012 for partition and separate possession of her respective share in the ancestral and joint family properties, in which a preliminary decree was passed on 10.11.2016. Thereafter the final decree proceedings were initiated and the final order has been passed on 05.01.2023. In the above premises, the applicant is challenging the measures, contending that the respondent No.2 who had created mortgage is entitled only to 1/5th share of the property, which is mentioned as Item No.3 in the partition suit. Hence, according to the applicants they being the co-owners of the property entitled to impugned the measures initiated against the property and that the bank is not entitled to proceed against the joint family property as the so claimed mortgage in favour of them is not a valid one.
4 SA/222/2024
only a result of the collusion between the applicant as well as the
2nd respondent as the parties are so related.
applicant to condone the delay found to be not maintainable and is
to dismissed and the SA is found to be filed beyond time prescribed under the statute. Hence, SA.No.222/2024 stands dismissed. All pending IAs stand closed. The parties to bear their respective costs.
Copy of this order be communicated to the parties concerned.
(Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), after her transcription and necessary corrections, signed and Order passed on this 29th day of August 2025)
Sd/-
DRT-II, BENGALURU
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Securitization Application filed 12 days beyond the statutory period is maintainable despite the Tribunal claiming locus standi.
Whether the Tribunal can condone the delay in filing a Securitization Application under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Jayanthi W/o. Devappa
Smt. Lakshmamma W/o. Late Kariyappa
Sri. Rangaswamy S/o. Late Kariyappa
Sri. Raghavendra S/o. Kate Kariyappa
M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
Sri. Ramesh K S/o. Late Kariyappa
T. RAJESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
