Dismissed

V H Kunjumon v. Canara Bank

DRT17 Oct 2025SA/246/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the Securitization Application. It held that requesting recovery of a separate debt from a third party does not fall under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and dismissed the challenge to the possession order, finding the date error in the notice was merely typographical.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; no costs awarded to any party.

V H Kunjumon versus Canara Bank — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 17^th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶4

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

¶5

S.A No. 246 of 2025

¶6

Between

¶7

V.H.Kunjumon S/o.Hydrose Vazhayil House, Sreebhoothapuram Sreemoolanagaram, Ernakulam-683580.

¶8

--- Applicant

¶9

And

¶10

Canara Bank, Sreemoolanagaram branch, Vadakkumcherry Building, Kalady Road,Ernakulam-683580 Rep by its Branch Manager.

¶11

The Authorised officer, Canara Bank Sreemoolanagaram branch, Vadakkumcherry Building, Kalady Road, Ernakulam-683580.

¶12

Sri. Vinod Madhavan, The Administrator, Apple Tower, Palarivattom-Edapply Bye-Pass Road, Edappally P.O., Kochi-682024

¶13

--- Defendants

¶14

SA No.246 of 2025

¶15

This Securitization Application coming on 11.09.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mr. Anil Raj, Counsel appearing for both the Applicant and Mr. Prem Raj, Advocate appearing for the defendants 1 and 2 and upon hearing arguments of learned Counsels for both the parties and upon perusing the material on records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This Securitisation Application was filed on 28.03.2025 seeking to declare that Annexures A2 application, A3 order of Chief Judicial Magistrate and A4 notice of the Advocate Commissioner are illegal and to quash the same and to declare that the defendants 1 & 2 are not entitled to take physical possession of the secured asset pursuant to Annexure A4 Advocate Commissioner’s Notice and to direct the 3rd defendant to transfer the amount due to the applicant as per Annexure A5 letter of the 1^st defendant bank and to direct the defendants 1 and 2 to pay the entire costs of this proceeding to the applicant and compensation amount of Rs.10 lakhs.

¶18

The applicants availed credit facilities from the 1^st defendant bank upon creation of equitable mortgage over his property admeasuring 4.05 Ares comprised in Sy.No.45/16 in Block No.30,Thekkumbhagom Village, Aluva Taluk, Ernakulam District by deposit of title deeds with the 1^st defendant bank.

¶19

Due to default committed in repayment of the outstanding loan due, the loan account of the applicant came to be classified as NonPerforming Asset, Annexure A1 demand notice dated 07.07.2024 was issued to the applicant calling upon him to pay the outstanding loan due within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the demand notice.

¶20

Since the applicant failed to send any objection/representation to the demand notice and to discharge his liability due to the 1^st defendant bank, the defendants approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and filed Annexure A2 application and affidavit under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Annexure A3 order dated 07.10.2024 came to be passed in MC No.1055/2024 appointing advocate commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. The advocate Commissioner issued Annexure A4 notice to the applicant and other co-borrower informing them that he would take physical possession of the secured asset.

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

SA No.246 of 2025

¶23

The counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that Annexure A2 affidavit does not fulfil the mandatory requirements of Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and that without verifying the above aspect, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (MPs/MLAs) Court passed order to take physical possession of the secured asset. Annexure A4 notice is defective since the date in the notice is shown as 16.12.2023 which is the date even prior to the date of Annexure A3 order which was passed on 07.10.2024.

¶24

It is submitted further by the counsel for the applicant that a sum of Rs.5 lakhs is due to the defendant from the 3^rd defendant, Apple a Day Properties (Pvt) Ltd., and that the 1^st defendant bank sent Annexure A5 letter to the 3^rd defendant for release of the aforesaid amount to the bank and that the 3^rd defendant may be directed to transfer a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to the 1^st defendant bank and that the SA may be allowed as prayed for.

¶25

The counsel appearing for the defendants submitted that the due to the default committed by the applicant, his loan account was classified as Non-Performing Asset as per the RBI guidelines and that in Annexure A4 notice, the date has been typed as 16^th December 2023 instead of 16^th December 2024 due to typographical error and that it would not have caused any prejudice to the applicant and that further the applicant has himself admitted that Annexure A3 order is dated 07.10.2024 and that non-disbursement of a sum of Rs.5 lakh by the 3^rd defendant to the 1^st defendant bank is not the justifiable reason for the applicant to clear off his liability and that Annexure A2 affidavit was filed in compliance with the statutory requirement of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and that Annexure A3 order is correct and that therefore, SA may be dismissed with costs to the defendants.

¶26

The applicant has himself admitted in the SA that due to heavy financial distress, the loan amount was not paid in full. For Annexure A1 demand notice, the applicant neither sent any objection nor representation.

¶27

A perusal of Annexure A2 affidavit shows that the defendants complied with the statutory requirements contemplated under clauses (i) to (ix) to the proviso of Section 14 (1) of the SAFRAESI Act, 2002. A perusal of Annexure A3 order shows that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam after having perused the

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

SA No.246 of 2025

¶30

compliance of the affidavit and the documents filed in support of the affidavit and after having verified and satisfied over the same, ,passed order appointing advocate commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. Indisputably, in Annexure A4 notice issued by the advocate commissioner, the date is mentioned as 16^th December, 2023 instead of 16^th December 2024. The applicant is aware of Annexure A3 order which was passed on 07.10.2024. Therefore, the advocate commissioner could not have issued Annexure A3 notice on 06.12.2023. Hence, it is evident that due to typographical error, the date was wrongly typed as 16^th day of December 2023 instead of 16^th day of December 2024. Therefore, no prejudice could have been caused to the applicant.

¶31

Annexure A5 is the letter sent by the 1^st defendant bank to the 3^rd defendant for transfer of Rs.5 lakhs. It appears that the 3^rd defendant did not send the aforesaid amount to the 1^st defendant bank. However, it is for the applicant to take further action to recover the amount due to him from the 3^rd defendant. Therefore, the reliefs sought for by the applicant in the SA to direct the 3^rd defendant to transfer the amount due to him does not fall under any of the measures referred to in Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶32

In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, the Tribunal holds that the applicant is not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the SA.

¶33

In the result, SA No.246/2025 stands dismissed. No costs.

¶34

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17^th day of October, 2025.

(Su. WILLYAHM)

PRESIDING OFFICER

al/

Page 4 of 5

SA No.246 of 2025

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

¶41

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	7.7.2022	A true copy of the demand notice	Annexure-A1
2.	------	A true copy of the S.14 application along with affidavit filed as MC No.1055/2024 before Chief Judicial Magistrate court,Ernakulam.	Annexure-A2
3.	7.10.2024	A true copy of the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (MPS/MLAS) Court.	Annexure-A3
4.	16.12.2023	A true copy of the Advocate Commissioner Notice.	Annexure-A4
5.	22.08.2024	A true copy of the letter issued by the 1^stdefendant bank.	Annexure-A5

¶42

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶43

al/

¶44

Page 5 of 5

V H Kunjumon v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V H Kunjumon v. Canara Bank

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

State Bank of India versus Anil Kumar Yadav

State Bank of India versus Ritu

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Manjegowda G a and Others

Ms Balaji Steels and Pipes and Others versus PNB Housing Finance Limited

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs. Jyoti Chauhan

Central Bank of India versus M/S Kiwi Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.