Dismissed

Jalaludheen U K v. South Indian Bank

DRT10 Dec 2025SA/276/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Securitisation Application dismissed as not maintainable due to delay in filing. Tribunal held applicants failed to challenge possession notice within statutory period and lacked specificity regarding interest claims or Section 14(1) order challenge.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed with no order as to costs.

What the court decided

Jalaludheen U K versus South Indian Bank — Cheque Dishonour | DRT (2025)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 10^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶4

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

¶5

S.A No. 276 of 2024

¶6

Between

¶7

Jalaludheen U.K., S/o. Abdul Rahiman, Darul Abrar, Nellur, Muzhakkunnu, Kakkengad,

¶8

Kannur – 670 702.

¶9

Shareefa Jalaludheen, W/o. Jalaludheen U.K., Darul Abrar, Nellur, Muzhakkunnu, Kakkengad,

¶10

Kannur – 670 702. --- Applicants

¶11

And

¶12

The Branch Manager, South Indian Bank Ltd. Muncipal Shopping Complex, Mattannur, Kannur-670702.

¶13

The Authorized Officer, South Indian Bank Ltd. KVR Tower, Talap, Kannur – 670 002.

¶14

--- Defendants

¶15

SA No.276 of 2024

¶16

This Securitization Application coming on 27.08.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Ms. Krishnapriya R., Counsel appearing for the Applicants and Mr. Rajesh Rajagopala Pillai, Counsel appearing for the defendants and upon hearing arguments of learned Counsels for both the parties and upon perusing the material on records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Securitisation Application was filed on 22.03.2024 seeking to declare that Annexure-A3 notice is arbitrary, illegal and not maintainable under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules and to set aside the SARFAESI measures initiated by the defendants against the secured asset and to set aside Annexure-A1 and A3 notices.

¶19

The applicants who are husband and wife jointly availed credit facility from the 1^st defendant bank upon execution of equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds over the immovable property admeasuring an extent of 4.5 Ares comprised in RS. No.67/3 of Muzakkunnu village, Iritty Taluk, Kannur District, with the 1^st defendant bank.

¶20

Since the applicants defaulted in repayment of the outstanding loan due, the loan account was classified as Non-Performing Asset and demand notice dated 15.02.2022 Annexure-D1 was issued to the applicants calling upon them to repay the outstanding loan due within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the demand notice. The applicants neither sent any objection/representation to the demand notice nor did they clear off their liability due to the defendant bank.

¶21

Since the applicants failed to respond to the terms of the demand notice, Possession Notice dated 18.11.2022 Annexure-A1 was issued for symbolically taking physical possession of the secured asset.

¶22

Thereafter, the defendants approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, and filed application and affidavit under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Order came to be passed appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner issued Annexure-A3 notice dated 31.1.2024 to the applicants informing them that he would take physical possession of the secured asset on 16.2.2024. The applicants having aggrieved against the above measures have filed this SA seeking for the reliefs stated supra.

¶23

The counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that classification of loan account as Non-Performing Asset is against the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and that symbolic

¶24

Page 2 of 5

¶25

SA No.276 of 2024

¶26

possession of the secured asset was not taken as per Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 and that no breathing time was given to the applicants to settle the liabilities before initiation of the coercive measures and that the defendants are attempting to dispossess the applicants of the secured asset without complying the statutory requirements contemplated under the SARFAESI Act 2002 and the Rules made there under and that the amount claimed and the interest calculated is exorbitant and that therefore SA may be allowed as prayed for.

¶27

The counsel appearing for the defendants submitted that loan account of the applicants was classified as NPA as per the RBI guidelines and that neither objection nor representation was sent by the applicants for the demand notice Annexure-D1 and that possession notice was served to the applicants and that it was published in two leading newspapers and that possession notice was affixed on the conspicuous part of the secured asset and that the amount claimed in Annexure-D1 demand notice is correct and that interest has been charged as per the agreed terms of the contract and that the measures initiated by the defendants are in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act 2002 and the Rules made there under and that therefore SA may be dismissed with costs to the defendants.

¶28

Annexure-D4 copy of postal acknowledgment cards evidences the service of possession notice on the applicants. The defendants have produced Annexure-D5 and D6 in order to prove their contention that possession notice was published in two leading newspapers. Be that as it may, though possession notice was issued as early as on 18.11.2022, it was not challenged by the applicants by filing SA within the statutory period. This SA was filed only on 22.3.2024. On this ground alone, this SA in which Annexure-D3 possession notice is challenged is not maintainable.

¶29

The applicants have not specifically pointed out or averred in the SA as to how exorbitant rate of interest has been charged in Annexure-D1 demand notice. The outstanding amount payable by the applicants is clearly stated in Demand Notice. The applicants having failed to send any objection or representation is estopped from contending that the amount claimed is exorbitant and that classification of loan account as Non-Performing Asset is against the RBI guidelines

¶30

There is no specific challenge in the SA with regard to the measures initiated by the defendants u/s 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002. The applicants have also not challenged the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery in CMP No.4444/23 appointing Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the

¶31

Page 3 of 5

¶32

SA No.276 of 2024

¶33

secured asset. Without challenging the aforesaid measures, the mere challenge of Annexure-A3 notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner is unsustainable.

¶34

The applicants have failed to establish their case so as to get the reliefs sought for in the SA.

¶35

Resultantly, S.A No.276 of 2024 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10^th day of December, 2025.

¶37

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 4 of 5

SA No.276 of 2024

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

¶42

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	18.11.2022	True copy of the possession notice issued by the defendants.	Annexure-A1
2.	09.03.2023	True copy of the judgment in W.P. (C) No.1211/2023 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.	Annexure-A2
3.	31.01.2024	True copy of the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner.	Annexure-A3
4.	14.02.2024	True copy of the judgment in W.P. (C) No.5387/2024 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.	Annexure-A4

¶43

List of documents filed by the defendants along with the written statement

¶44

Sl.	Date	Particulars
No.
1.	15.02.2022	True copy of the demand notice issued by the 2^nd defendant to the applicants	Annexure-D1
2.	---	True copy of the postal acknowledgement cards signed by the applicants.	Annexure-D2 series (2 Nos)
3.	18.11.2022	True copy of the possession notice issued to the applicants.	Annexure-D3
4.	---	True copy of the postal acknowledgement cards evidencing the receipt of the possession notice .	Annexure-D4 series (2 Nos)
5.	20.11.2022	True copy of the news paper publication of possession notice in The Indian Express daily (English)	Annexure-D5
6.	20.11.2022	True copy of the news paper publication of possession notice in Malayala Manorama daily (Malayalam)	Annexure-B6

¶45

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶46

Mj/

¶47

Page 5 of 5

Jalaludheen U K v. South Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Jalaludheen U K v. South Indian 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

Jyoti Nandlal @ Jyoti Rani versus Indian Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Kunal Ramchandani

Sunil Ghate versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited

Sri Chotey Lal Prasad and Anr. versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Ms Saha Traders and Ors.

Smt Trupti Govind Rathi versus Union Bank of India