Allowed

Sanu Joseph v. Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

DRT27 Nov 2025SA/228/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant's application to set aside securitization proceedings initiated by the defendant bank. The court set aside the proceedings due to lack of proper issuance of possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, granting liberty to proceed afresh.

What did the court decide?

The securitization proceeding is set aside with liberty to the defendant to proceed afresh from the stage of issuance of the possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.

Sanu Joseph versus Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. — Service and Employment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT: SRI. SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Dated this the 27^th day of November, 2025

¶4

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.228/2024

¶5

Between

¶6

Sanu Joseph, Aged 47 years, Mundamthadathil House, Chettupuzha Desom, Pullazhi Village, Thrissur Taluk – 680 641. …Applicant

¶7

And Kerala Bank, Thrissur Main Branch, (Formerly the Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Ltd.), Represented by its Authorised Officer, Sahakarana Sathabdhi Mandiram, Tuda Road, Kovilakathupadam P.O., Thiruvambady, Thrissur- 680 022. …defendant

¶8

This Securitization Application having been heard on 21.11.2025 in the presence of Advocate Bijumon E.A. for the applicant and Advocate Abhijith M.A. for the defendant and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:

¶9

SA 228/2024

¶10

¶11

F I N A L O R D E R

¶12

Challenging the securitization proceeding initiated by the defendant 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 has filed this SA under S.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act with a prayer to set aside all proceedings initiated by the defendant against the applicant is illegal, irregular and against law under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶13

Brief facts of the case :

¶14

2.1 The applicant’s wife/borrower has availed a simple loan for Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs only) to develop the textiles, “Fanmariya Textiles” from the defendant on 07.05.2016 and the applicant stood as a guarantor by creating security interest in respect of the scheduled property owned by him. The certified copy of the agreement, Annexure-A1 was executed on 07.05.2016 in favour of the defendant bank.

¶15

2.2 Subsequently due to non-repayment of the loan in time, demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued by the defendant on 14.11.2017 followed by possession notice dated 30.01.2018.

¶16

SA 228/2024

¶17

¶18

2.3 The defendant bank initiated CMP No.1570 of 2024 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur to take physical possession of the secured asset. The measure taken under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the CJM, Thrissur is not as per the statutory requirement. In the SA the applicant claims that the notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act is not properly issued by following the statutory requirements. Hence the proceedings render illegal. This SA is filed to set aside the entire measures taken from the stage of issuance of demand notice and the Order passed by the CJM, Thrissur in Crl. M.P. No.1570/2024.

¶19

After service of summons, the defendant appeared but not filed any written statement and documents.

¶20

During hearing the learned counsel for the applicant contended that, the action taken by the bank is against the legal norms and procedural protocols. Issuance of possession notice and publication of the same in widely circulated newspaper of the locality within the stipulated time is essential requirement and in absence of the same the securitization proceeding is vitiated. Hence the entire securitization proceeding may be set aside. So also, the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur in CMP No.1570/2024 is illegal. All the statutory requirement was not duly followed in submission of the

¶21

SA 228/2024

¶22

¶23

application and the affidavit by the authorized officer which renders the order illegal.

¶24

The defendant has appeared in this case, but not produced any documents to deny the claim of the defendants by the applicant in the securitization proceeding. The secured creditor should have followed the prescribed procedure in the securitization measure as specified under the provision of SARFAESI Act and the rules made thereunder. No material is available on record about the compliance of the statutory requirement. In absence of the same, the claim of the applicant cannot be disbelieved and the same are accepted as correct.

¶25

Hence it is ordered:-

¶26

ORDER

¶27

In view of the foregoing reasons the SA is allowed and the securitization proceeding is hereby set aside, giving liberty to the defendant to proceed afresh in the securitization measure from the stage of issuance of the possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act in accordance with the law.

¶28

(Dictated to my PA, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 27^th day of November, 2025).

¶29

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶30

Documents on the part of the applicant

¶31

Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
Annexure-A1	07.05.2016	Certificate copy of the agreement executed.
Annexure-A2	14.11.2017	Certified copy of the Demand Notice from the respondent bank (along with English translation of the same)
Annexure-A3	30.01.2018	Certified copy of the possession notice from the respondent bank (along with English translation of the same)
Annexure-A4	23.01.2024	Certified copy of the petition and affidavit of Crl. M.P. No.1570/2024 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur.
Annexure-A5	02.02.2024	Certified true copy of the Order of Crl. M.P. No.1570/2024 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur.
Annexure-A6	19.02.2024	Certified true copy of the notice issued by Advocate Commissioner in Crl. M.P. No.1570/2024 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur.
Annexure-A7	07.02.2023 & 13.03.2023	True copy of the amount paid by the applicant.

¶32

Documents on the part of the defendant .. NIL

¶33

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶34

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶35

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶36

Dated the 27^th November, 2025

¶37

SA No.228/2024

¶38

Between

¶39

Sanu Joseph, Aged 47 years, Mundamthadathil House, Chettupuzha Desom, Pullazhi Village, Thrissur Taluk–680 641. …Applicant

¶40

And

¶41

Kerala Bank, Thrissur Main Branch, (Formerly the Thrissur District (Co-operative Bank Ltd.), Represented by its Authorised Officer, Sahakarana Sathabdhi Mandiram, Tuda Road, Kovilakathupadam P.O., Thiruvambady, Thrissur- 680 022.

¶42

…defendant

¶43

F I N A L O R D E R

Sanu Joseph v. Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanu Joseph v. Kerala State 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

Hdfc Bank versus Ashok Kumar

Canara Bank versus Amarjit Singh

Ajay Kashyap versus Piramal Capital

Ms Hi Tech Constructions versus State Bank of India

Hdfc Bank versus Lal Babu Singh

Isaac john gill versus Bank of Baroda