Dismissed

Ms We Build P Ltd. v. State Bank of India

DRT24 Jun 2025SA/256/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the security application filed by borrowers and guarantors challenging sale notices issued under the SARFAESI Act. Holding that prior proceedings were sub judice and the current claims were barred by res judicata, the court found no illegality in the sales, lack of collusion or fraud, and unnecessary litigation delaying recovery.

What did the court decide?

TheSecuritization Application No.256/2024 was dismissed. The applicants were directed to pay costs of Rs.50,000 to the defendant bank.

Ms We Build P Ltd. versus State Bank of India — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Dated this the 24^th day of June, 2025

¶4

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.256/2024

¶5

Between

¶6

M/s.We Build (P) Ltd.,

¶7

Registered office at: TC 16/713, Jagathy, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 014, Represented by its Managing Director C.Kamalasanan.

¶8

C.Kamalasanan, S/o.N.Chellappan, “Sruthi”, TC 16/712, Kochar Road, Jagathy, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 014.

¶9

S.S.Suja, W/o.Manu Kamal, “Sruthi”, TC 16/712, Kochar Road, Jagathy, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 014.

¶10

M.Sushama, W/o.Kamalasanan, “Sruthi”, TC 16/712, Kochar Road, Jagathy, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 014.

¶11

M.S.Susheela, W/o.Jayachandran, “Utharayan”, House No.42, Tagore Gardens, Kumarapuram, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 011. …Applicants

SA 256/2024

And

State Bank of India (erstwhile State Bank of Travancore), Poojappura Branch, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 012, Represented by the Chief Manager.

¶16

Chief Manager/Authorised Officer, Stressed Asset Recovery Brnach, LMS Building, LMS Compound, Opp.Museum West Gate, Vikas Bhavan P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 033. …Defendants

¶17

This Securitization Application having been heard on

¶18

05.06.2025 in the presence of Advocates M/s.Millu Dandapani and Vishnu S. for the applicants and Advocates M/s.R.S.Kalkura, M.S.Kalesh and Geethu C. for the defendants and stood over to this

¶19

day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:

¶20

F I N A L O R D E R

¶21

Challenging the securitization proceedings 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 applicants/borrower and guarantors filed this SA under S.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act seeking relief to set aside the sale proceedings pursuant to Annexures-A11, A12, A15 and A16 sale notices issued by the defendant bank.

¶22

SA 256/2024

¶23

¶24

Brief facts of the case :

¶25

2.1. The 1^st applicant, a registered private limited company, availed financial assistance from the erstwhile State Bank of Travancore as per sanction letter dated 22.04.2016 marked Annexure-A1 and the applicants 2 to 5 stood as guarantors for the loans. Subsequently, State Bank of Travancore was merged with the defendant bank. Due to default in repayment, the loans were classified as NPA on 30.04.2017. The demand notice under S.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued by the defendant on 25.05.2017 calling the applicants to repay the outstanding amount. On receipt of the same, the applicants raised objection under S.13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act but no reply was given by the defendants in violation of the statutory provision. Subsequently, another demand notice was issued on 04.07.2018 which was also withdrawn by the defendant bank on 07.09.2018. Thereafter, fresh demand notice was issued on 20.09.2018 marked Annexure-A6. The applicants submitted objection under S.13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act. It is claimed by the applicants that the defendant bank has given a vague reply by rejecting the objection.

¶26

2.2 Aggrieved by the further measure taken by the defendants, SA No.144/2019 was filed by the applicants. Without

¶27

SA 256/2024

¶28

¶29

appreciating the contentions raised by the applicants, the said SA was dismissed by judgment dated 21.03.2020 marked AnnexureA9. The applicants challenged the same before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C) No.12035/2020 which was dismissed citing the lack of jurisdiction and availability of alternate remedy. The applicants challenged the judgment before appellate forum. The matter went up to the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.18813/2021 and the same was dismissed by judgment dated 18.11.2021 vide Annexure-A10. The applicants have also filed appeal before the Hon'ble DRAT, Chennai vide AIR (SA) No.121/2020 which was dismissed for default.

¶30

2.3. Thereafter the defendant bank proceeded with sale of the secured assets by issuing notice dated 11.10.2021 fixing the sale on 19.11.2021 vide Annexure-A11. The applicants filed W.P.(C) No.28391/2021 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala challenging the sale proceeding. The Hon'ble High Court did not interfere with the sale proceeding but the confirmation of sale was restricted until further orders by interim order dated 20.12.2021. In the sale proceeding, item No.1 property in the sale notice was materialized. The defendants proceeded in issuing fresh sale notice marked Annexure-A12 on 26.11.2021 for e-auction of other properties.

¶31

SA 256/2024

¶32

¶33

Subsequently, the Hon'ble High Court permitted the confirmation of sale of 1^st item property and the defendants proceeded for registration. In the review petition, registration of item No.2 property was stayed. Subsequently, writ appeal and review petition were dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court. In the Intra Court Writ Appeal, interim order was passed staying registration of the sale. The Hon'ble High Court disposed the same keeping registration of the sale of the secured assets in abeyance and permitted the applicants to raise the contentions before the Tribunal. Hence this SA is filed praying to quash Annexure-A11 sale notice dated 11.10.2021, Annexure-A12 sale notice dated 26.11.2021 and subsequent sale notices Annexure-A15 dated 04.01.2022 and Annexure-A16 dated 07.05.2022.

¶34

3.1 The defendants filed written statement denying the averments and stated that due to the default committed by the applicants in repaying various loans availed by them, the accounts were classified as NPA and proceeding was initiated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act by issuing demand notice calling them to repay the loans. Due to non-compliance, statutory measure under S.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act in taking possession of the secured assets was taken. The defendants initiated proceeding

¶35

SA 256/2024

¶36

¶37

under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act before the CJM, Thiruvananthapuram which was challenged by the applicants in SA No.144/2019. All the contentions up to the stage of S.14 measure were considered by the Tribunal and the SA was dismissed. The applicants filed various cases before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala as well as before the Hon'ble Apex Court in challenging such judgement but no relief was granted to them. The appeal filed before the Hon'ble DRAT in AIR (SA) No.121/2020 was also dismissed. The finding in the SA is conclusive and the same cannot be re-agitated or reopened in this forum.

¶38

3.2 The defendants issued sale notice dated 11.10.2021 vide Annexure-A11 after taking valuation of the secured assets. All the statutory measures are duly followed. The sale was materialized in respect of 10.30 Ares of land along with the building therein owned by the 3^rd applicant S.S.Suja for an amount of Rs.166.40 lakhs which was confirmed in favour of the auction purchaser and sale certificate was issued on 06.12.2021 after receipt of the entire sale consideration and the same was registered in his favour. The sale is not challenged within the statutory period and hence the claim in respect of such sale is not entertainable and is barred by limitation. The applicants filed W.P.(C) No.28391/2021 before the

¶39

SA 256/2024

¶40

¶41

Hon'ble High Court of Kerala but the sale was not stayed. The applicants challenged the sale proceeding in various forums but they did not get any favourable relief. Lastly, the Hon'ble High Court passed judgment in W.A.No.1706/2022 and W.A.No.1596/2022 on 08.12.2022 permitting the applicants to approach the Tribunal.

¶42

3.3 The defendants issued fresh sale notice on 26.11.2021

¶43

vide Annexure-A12 and one Nasurudeen Musaliyar was the successful bidder in respect of 23.40 Ares of land and the building therein for Rs.613/- lakhs and the sale was confirmed in his favour and sale certificate was issued to him on 10.02.2022. It is contended further that the applicants were given sufficient opportunities to repay the outstanding loan amount but they did not repay the same, instead proceeded in filing various cases in different forum. There is no illegality in any of the sale proceeding. As on 25.10.2024, total amount of Rs.21,49,80,162/is outstanding in the loan accounts. In absence of any illegality, interference with the sale proceedings is not at all warranted. Hence this SA, being barred by limitation and devoid of any merit, may be dismissed.

¶44

SA 256/2024

¶45

¶46

3.4. In this proceeding, two other sale notices marked Annexure-A15 dated 04.01.2022 and Annexure-A16 dated 07.05.2022 were challenged but the sale did not fructify. Hence this SA is confined to adjudication regarding the validity of the sale held in pursuance to Annexures-A11 and A12 sale notices.

¶47

From the respective contentions of both sides, the following points are emerged for adjudication in this case:

¶48

(i) Whether the sale conducted by the defendants on 19.11.2021 in respect of item No.1 property in Annexure-A11 sale notice and the sale conducted on 24.12.2021 in respect of item No.2 property in Annexure-A12 sale notice suffer from any illegality to interdict with the same?

¶49

(ii) Whether the applicants are entitled to get any relief in this case?

¶50

FINDINGS:

¶51

Point Nos.(i) & (ii):

¶52

For the sake of convenience, both the points, being interlinked with each other, are taken up together for adjudication. Admittedly, the applicants availed various loans from the defendant bank by creating security interest over the subject matter

¶53

SA 256/2024

¶54

¶55

properties. Due to default in repayment, securitization proceedings were initiated after classifying the loans as NPA. The defendant bank initially issued a notice dated 25.05.2017 calling the borrowers and guarantors to repay the outstanding amount. The said notice was recalled and a fresh demand notice was issued on 04.07.2017 which was also withdrawn. Thereafter, demand notice under S.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 20.09.2018. Due to non-payment of the claim amount, further measure was taken under S.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act for taking symbolic possession of the secured assets. The applicants filed SA No.144/2019 before this Tribunal challenging such measure initiated by the defendants. During pendency of the said SA, the defendants approached the CJM, Thiruvananthapuram in MC No.946/2019 in a proceeding under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act for taking physical possession of the secured assets. The order passed by the CJM and the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the secured assets are also challenged in the said proceeding by way of amendment.

¶56

After hearing the parties and discussing the claim meticulously, a judgment was passed in SA No.144/2019 on 21.03.2020 in dismissing the SA. The applicants filed W.P.(C)

¶57

SA 256/2024

¶58

¶59

No.12035/2020 challenging the said judgment which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the applicants preferred W.A.No.267/2021 before the Hon'ble High Court which was also dismissed on 15.03.2021. Against the said judgment, the applicants preferred S.L.P.No.18813/2021 before the Hon'ble Apex Court which was also dismissed on 18.11.2021. The appeal filed before the Hon'ble DRAT, Chennai bearing AIR (SA) No.121/2020 was not prosecuted and hence the same was dismissed for default. Consequently, the judgment of this Tribunal in SA No.144/2019 has attained finality and the applicants have no right to re-agitate the same contentions raised therein in this case.

¶60

In this SA, the applicants have raised contention regarding classification of the loans as NPA illegally. In the earlier SA also, in paragraph 12 the applicants raised the issue of classification of the loan as NPA and claimed the issuance of demand notice and possession notice as illegal. At the time of hearing the SA, the issue regarding NPA classification was not raised and defect in issuance of possession notice and proceeding under S.14(1) of the SARFAESI Act were only raised. In paragraphs 20 and 22 of the earlier judgment in SA No.144/2019, this Tribunal observed as follows:-

¶61

SA 256/2024

¶62

¶63

“20. The primary contention raised by the applicants is that the respondents have not complied with Rule 8(1) and (2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules as they have failed to affix the possession notice in all the properties and also failed to publish the possession within the prescribed time in two news dailies.

¶64

22. Admittedly, the applicants have received the possession notice dated 26.02.2019 and produced the same at Annexure XXVI. It could be seen from Annexure B1 photographs that the respondents have affixed the possession notice on the c onspicuous place of the s ecured assets. It could be inferred from Annexures B2 and B3 that after taking possession of the secured asset on 26.02.2019, the respondents have published the possession in New Indian Express and Kerala Kaumudi daily dated 01.03.2019 i.e., on the 5^th day from the date of taking possession of the secured asset. Therefore, the contention of the applicants that the respondents have failed to take proper steps as enumerated under R.8(1) and R.8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules is quite misconceived.”

¶65

So far as S.14 measures, the Tribunal held in paragraph 23 as

¶66

follows:-

¶67

23. “The second point raised by the applicants is that the respondents have failed to furnish necessary details as provided under Section 14 (1) in clause (i) to (ix) of the SARFAESI Act. On perusal of the documents produced by the applicants themselves would vouch for the fact that respondents 1 and 2 have meticulously adhered to the legal mandates as envisaged under S.14(i) of the Act while approaching the CJM Court and the Authorised Officer of the secured creditor bank has filed an affidavit setting out all the details as contemplated under sub-clauses (i) to (ix) of the proviso to S.14(1) of the Act. Hence aforesaid contention of the applicants is unsustainable and devoid of any merit.”

¶68

Ultimately, in paragraph 27 it was held as follows:-

¶69

27. “Upon examining the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal could come to a conclusion that the recourse taken by the secured creditor under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It appears that the present attempt of

¶70

SA 256/2024

¶71

¶72

the borrowers is only to thwart the legitimate recovery proceedings initiated by the secured creditor which cannot be entertained by the Tribunal. The respondent is duty bound to recover the colossal sum of Rs.10,17,16,202.09 due as on 29.06.2019.

¶73

Once the Tribunal concludes that there is no illegality in the securitization proceedings and dismissed the SA, it is deemed that all the claims raised by the applicants in the said SA are taken into consideration and having no merit in the contentions, the claim was not accepted and the SA was dismissed. Once the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the securitization proceeding is legal, the contention regarding illegality in classifying the loan as NPA is deemed to have been considered by the Tribunal and the same cannot be re-agitated again in this forum.

¶74

During argument stage and in the written notices, the learned counsel for the applicants has raised several points regarding the matter already adjudicated which cannot be considered in this proceeding. The conclusion of the Tribunal in the earlier proceeding, being absolute and having attained finality, the applicants cannot re-agitate or reopened the same from time to time on some plea or the other and their claim in respect of securitization measure up to taking step under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act is barred under the law of res judicata.

¶75

SA 256/2024

¶76

¶77

After final disposal of the earlier SA No.144/2019, the defendant bank issued Annexure-A11 sale notice dated 11.10.2021 in respect of five items of properties by fixing the reserve price as follows:-

¶78

Item No.1 : 10.30 Ares : Rs.1.30 crores Item No.2 : 2.30 Ares : Rs.97 lakhs Item No.3 : 23.40 Ares : Rs.4.68 crores Item No.4 : 7.94 Ares : Rs.3.25 crores Item No.5 : 8.89 Ares : 3.51 crores

¶79

The details of the properties are described in the SA. Out of the five items of properties, the sale in respect of item No.1 property of an extent of 10.30 Ares was held on 19.11.2021 in favour of one Dr.Anil Kumar K.V. for an amount of Rs.166.40 lakhs and sale certificate was issued to him on 06.12.2021.

¶80

The defendants issued another sale notice on 26.11.2021 marked Annexure-A12 for e-auction of the secured assets fixing the sale on 24.12.2021. Pursuant thereto, item No.2 property in Annexure-A12 sale notice of an extent of 23.40 Ares was sold to the highest bidder viz., Nasurudeen Musaliyar for a sale consideration of Rs.613 lakhs. The sale certificate was issued on 10.02.2022.

¶81

SA 256/2024

¶82

¶83

In the SA at paragraph 10 it is averred that the applicants were aggrieved by Annexure-A11 sale notice since the defendant bank was attempting to dispose the secured assets at a throw away price without proper valuation and that the entire procedure itself was void and illegal. In respect of Annexure-A12 sale notice, there is no whisper about any illegality in determining the valuation as well as reserve price. There is also no whisper regarding non-compliance of any statutory requirements in issuing such sale notice. The defendants filed written statement stating about the compliance of all statutory requirements in such sale proceedings and they have also produced relevant documents marked Annexures-B1 to B4 stating about issuance of sale certificates pursuant to the sale as stated earlier. At the fag end of the hearing on 20.05.2025 i.e., one day before the case is taken up for final hearing, a reply affidavit was filed by the applicants to the written statement filed by the defendants with some documents. In the said reply affidavit also, the same plea is reiterated without stating any specific illegality in the sale held in pursuance to Annexures-A11 and A12 sale notices.

¶84

SA 256/2024

¶85

¶86

In the written notes, learned counsel for the applicants have cited a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3727 in the case of Celir LLP vs. Sumati Prasad Bafna & others . The learned counsel for the defendants has also referred the same judgment. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-

¶87

“218 . Any sale by auction or other public procurement methods once already confirmed or concluded ought not to be set-aside or interfered with lightly except on grounds that go to the core of such sale process, such as either being collusive, fraudulent or vitiated by inadequate pricing or underbidding. Mere irregularity or deviation from a rule which does not have any fundamental procedural error does not take away the foundation of authority for such proceeding. In such cases, courts in particular should be mindful to refrain entertaining any ground for challenging an auction which either could have been taken earlier before the sale was conducted and confirmed or where no substantial injury has been caused on account of such irregularity.”

¶88

In view of this ratio, the sale conducted by public auction can only be interfered on the ground of collusion, fraudulent or vitiated by inadequate pricing or underbidding. In this case, no contention is raised regarding any collusion or fraudulent sale in pursuance to Annexures-A11 and A12 sale notices. In the SA, a general averment is made that the properties are undervalued but no details are furnished. No material is also produced by the applicants showing that valuation obtained by the defendant bank is erroneous and the sale is illegal in any manner. In absence of such challenge,

¶89

SA 256/2024

¶90

¶91

keeping in view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court, interference with the sale proceeding is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Besides the same, sale certificates were already issued to the auction purchasers and they derived valid title over the properties but the applicants did not take any step to implead them as parties to this SA. In absence of the auction purchasers, it is also not legally permissible to hold that the sale is illegal in any manner.

¶92

In the written notes, the applicants raised a question that physical possession of the secured assets was not taken and hence the sale is vitiated. Admittedly, symbolic possession of the secured assets was already taken. The statute does not prescribe that before selling the property, physical possession of the secured asset must be taken. In a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2023) 1 SCC 675 in the case of M/s.R.D.Jain and Co. vs. Capital First Ltd. & others, it is held as follows:-

¶93

“8. Thus, considering the scheme of the SARFAESI Act, it is explicit and crystal clear that possession of the secured assets can be taken by the secured creditor before confirmation of sale of the secured assets as well as post-confirmation of sale. For taking possession of the secured assets, it could be done by the “authorised officer” of the Bank as noted in Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.”

¶94

SA 256/2024

¶95

¶96

In view of this ratio, possession of the secured asset can also be taken after confirmation of the sale. Hence the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicants on this aspect is not sustainable.

¶97

Before concluding the case, it is necessary to answer the contention raised by the defendants regarding the issue of limitation in filing this SA. Admittedly, the SA was not filed within the statutory period of 45 days after conducting the sale or issuance of sale certificate in respect of two items of properties i.e., 06.12.2021 and 10.02.2022 respectively as prescribed under S.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. At the time of filing of the SA, the Registrar declined to register the same as it was not filed within 45 days from the date of accrual of cause of action. The applicants filed MA No.250/2022 in the unregistered SA which was heard and an order was passed on 04.07.2023. It was contended by the applicants in the said MA that the period spent by them before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C) No.28391/2021 and W.A.No.1596/2022 is to be excluded. This Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that to attract S.14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, some ingredients are required to be proved. Since the proceeding before

¶98

SA 256/2024

¶99

¶100

the Hon'ble High Court was not diligently prosecuted, delay in filing the SA cannot be excluded under S.14 of the Limitation Act.

¶101

Against the order dated 04.07.2023 passed in MA No.250/2022, the applicants filed O.P.(DRT) No.278/2023 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala which was disposed by judgment dated 17.01.2024. At paragraph 23 of the judgment, the Hon'ble High Court held as follows:-

¶102

“23. As held by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in W.A. Nos.1596 and 1706 of 2022, it is clear from Section 17 of the Act, 2022 that DRT is conferred with sufficient power and jurisdiction to consider such aspects. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is to be held that the Tribunal committed a grave error in rejecting MA No.250/2022 filed by the petitioners seeking to exclude the periods during which they were prosecuting the matter before the High Court. Ext.P13 order goes against the decision taken by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos.1596 and 1706 of 2022. Ext.P13 order in OP (DRT) No.278/2023 is therefore set aside. The Tribunal is liable to be directed to reconsider the interlocutory applications.”

¶103

The order passed in MA No.250/2022 was set aside and the

¶104

Tribunal was directed to reconsider the interlocutory applications. Accordingly, the case was taken up on 25.03.2024 and it was ordered that unless and until all the contentions raised by the parties are heard on merit, it is difficult to opine whether there is any delay in filing the SA or not. In such premises, it was ordered to register the SA keeping the limitation issue open and the same will be taken up at the time of final hearing after considering the

¶105

SA 256/2024

¶106

¶107

contentions of both sides on merit. Accordingly, the SA was registered keeping the limitation issue open. Since the Tribunal has come to the conclusion in this SA that there is no illegality in the sale proceeding and the applicants have no right to challenge the same, at this stage it is redundant to decide the issue of limitation in filing the SA. In such premises, it is not required to consider the issue in the present circumstances.

¶108

It is essential to point out that the applicants availed huge amount of loans from the defendant bank and the previous SA was also dismissed holding that the defendant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.10,17,16,202.09 due as on 29.06.2019. Instead of repaying the same, the applicants filed series of cases before different forums with the sole purpose and intention to protract the securitization measures for indefinite period. Even after issuance of sale certificate, the auction purchasers were not impleaded as parties who had deposited considerable amount in the public auction held by the defendants and they are deprived to enjoy the fruits of such sale. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in MANU/SC/0054/2018 in the case of Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore & another vs. Mathew K.C. had held as follows:-

¶109

SA 256/2024

¶110

¶111

“16.………. Loans by financial institutions are granted from public money generated at the tax payers expense. Such loan does not become the property of the person taking the loan, but retains its character of public money given in a fiduciary capacity as entrustment by the public. Timely repayment also ensures liquidity to facilitate loan to another in need, by circulation of the money and cannot be permitted to be blocked by frivolous litigation by those who can afford the luxury of the same……”

¶112

The applicants, instead of repaying the huge public money availed for business purposes, continued to raise various contentions at different forum and even after passing of judgment on merit, they raised the similar contentions in this proceeding. From such conduct it can be said that the sole intention of the applicants is to drag the proceeding causing delay in recovery measure. In view of the ratio decidendi of the Hon’ble Apex court, the frivolous claims raised by the applicants are not tenable and the defendants have rightly proceeded in sale of the secured assets to recover huge amount of outstanding. In absence of any illegality in the sale proceedings, the applicants are not entitled to get any relief and both the points are answered against the applicants.

¶113

Hence it is ordered:-

¶114

ORDER

¶115

In view of the foregoing reasons, this SA, being devoid

¶116

of any merit, is hereby dismissed. Due to filing of unnecessary litigation challenging the securitization proceedings, the applicants

¶117

SA 256/2024

¶118

¶119

are liable to pay costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only)

¶120

to the defendant bank.

¶121

(Dictated to my PA, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 24^th day of June, 2025)

¶122

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶123

SA 256/2024

¶124

¶125

Documents on the part of the applicants

¶126

Annexures	Date	Particulars of document	s
Annexure-A1	22.04.2016	Copy of sanction lette defendant bank.	r issue	d by	the
Annexure-A2	25.05.2017	Copy of demand notice	under	S.13(	2) of
		the SARFAESI Act applicants.	issued	to	the
Annexure-A3	15.07.2017	Copy of letter sub applicants.	mitted	by	the
Annexure-A4	04.07.2018	Copy of demand notice	under	S.13(	2) of
		the SARFAESI Act applicants.	issued	to	the
Annexure-A5	05.09.2018	Copy of letter sub applicants.	mitted	by	the
Annexure-A6	20.09.2018	Copy of notice issued to	the app	licant	s.
Annexure-A7	01.11.2018	Copy of letter sub applicants.	mitted	by	the
Annexure- A7(a)	08.11.2018	Copy of letter issued bank under S.13(3-A) Act.	by the of the	defen SARF	dant AESI
Annexure-A8	26.02.2019	Copy of notice issued bank.	by the	defen	dant
Annexure-A 9	21.03.2020	Copy of order of the No.144/2019.	Tribu	nal in	SA
Annexure-A10	18.11.2021	Copy of judgment in SL of the Hon'ble Apex Cou	P No.1 rt.	8813/	2021
Annexure-A11	11.10.2021	Copy of sale notice defendant bank.	issued	by	the
Annexure-A12	26.11.2021	Copy of sale notice defendant bank.	issued	by	the
Annexure-A13	16.12.2021	Copy of order in SLP the Hon'ble Apex Court.	No.1091	1/202	1 of

¶127

SA 256/2024

¶128

¶129

Annexure-A14	20.12.2021	Copy of interim order in W.P.(C) No.28391/2021 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
Annexure-A15	04.01.2022	Copy of sale notice issued by the defendant bank.
Annexure-A16	07.05.2022	Copy of sale notice issued by the defendant bank.
Annexure-A17	11.10.2022	Copy of judgment in W.P.(C) No.28391/2021 and R.P.No.149/2022 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
Annexure-A18	08.11.2022	Copy of interim order in W.A.No.1596/2022 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
Annexure-A19	08.12.2022	Copy of judgment in W.A.No.1596/2022 & and W.A.No.1706/2022 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
Annexure-A20	...	Copy of account statement.
Annexure-A21	30.03.2010	Copy of sanction letter issued by the defendant bank.
Annexure-A22	17.03.2016	Copy of notification issued by RBI.
Annexure-A23	24.04.2017	Copy of letter submitted to the defendant bank by the applicants.
Annexure-A24	13.11.2017	Copy of letter issued by the defendant bank.
Annexure-A25 Doc	22.12.2022 uments on t	Copy of report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner in OS No.1825/2022. he part of the defendants
Annexure-B1	12.10.2021	Copy of notice published in Kerala Kaumudi daily.
Annexure-B2	12.10.2021	Copy of sale notice published in The New Indian Express daily.
Annexure-B3	29.11.2021	Copy of sale notice published in Kerala Kaumudi daily.

¶130

SA 256/2024

¶131

¶132

Annexure-B4 29.11.2021 Copy of sale notice published in The New Indian Express daily

¶133

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶134

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶135

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶136

Dated the 24^th June, 2025

¶137

SA No.256/2024

¶138

Between

¶139

M/s.We Build (P) Ltd., Registered office at: TC 16/713, Jagathy, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 014, Represented by its Managing Director C.Kamalasanan & 4 others. ...Applicants

¶140

And

¶141

State Bank of India

¶142

(erstwhile State Bank of Travancore), Poojappura Branch, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 012, Represented by the Chief Manager & another. …Defendants

¶143

F I N A L O R D E R

Ms We Build P Ltd. v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms We Build P Ltd. v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus Surabhi

Ms Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited versus Anita Rani

Icici Bank Limited versus Luxus Carz

Shagun Sheikh versus State Bank of India

Abdul Lahil Baki versus Central Bank of India

M S Sona Garments Proprietor Abdul Jabbar versus Punjab National Bank