Dismissed

Manoj Cm v. Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

DRT27 Aug 2025SA/315/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed an application challenging the validity of measures taken by a co-operative bank to take possession of mortgaged property under the SARFAESI Act, noting the applicant failed to prove non-compliance with statutory requirements or raise a fresh challenge to the Magistrate’s order.

What did the court decide?

Application SA No.315/2023 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

Manoj Cm versus Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 27^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶4

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

¶5

S.A No.315 of 2023

¶6

Between

¶7

Manoj C.M., Chullikkadu House, Vaikom Road, Udayamperoor P.O., Ernakulam- 682307.

¶8

--- Applicant

¶9

And

¶10

Kerala State Co-operative Bank (Erstwhile Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank), Ernakulam District Office, Kakkanad P.O., Kochi-682030 represented by its Chief Manager & Authorised Officer.

¶11

--- Defendant

¶12

This Securitization Application coming on 08.07.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mr. Santhosh G. Prabhu, Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Mr. Rance Rebel, the Counsel appearing for the defendant and upon hearing the arguments of learned Counsel for the applicant and the counsel appearing for the defendant and upon having perused the material on records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶13

SA No.315/2023

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This Securitisation Application was filed on 16.06.2023 seeking to declare that measures taken by the defendant to take possession of land of the applicant are invalid; to declare that all proceedings initiated by the defendant bank under SARFAESI Act, leading to Annexure A2 notice are illegal and void and to award cost of the applicant.

¶16

The applicant has averred in the SA that he availed the loan of Rs.12 lakhs from the defendant Bank on 04.12.2028 upon creation of mortgage over the immovable property having an extent of 6.07 Ares in Sy. No.41/11A, Re.Sy.No.615/10/3, Block No.19 in Manakunnam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District, belonging to the applicant, his wife and his mother -in-law. But the contention of the defendant is that Smt. Saly Manoj, the wife of the applicant borrowed loan to the tune of Rs.12 lakhs on 12.11.2018 from the erstwhile Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank which was later amalgamated with the defendant bank in 2019 and that Smt. Sarada Vasu, the applicant, Muralidharan K.K. and Ajitha Muralidharan stood as personal sureties to the aforesaid credit facility. Annexure B1 true copy of the loan sanction order produced by the defendant substantiates the above contention of the defendant. Therefore, it is evident that it is the wife of the applicant and not the applicant availed the loan of Rs.12 lakhs from the aforesaid bank.

¶17

The applicant has admitted the default in repayment of the outstanding loan due to the defendant bank. Hence, the loan account was classified as NPA on 26.08.2019 and Annexure – A2 demand notice dated 11.12.2020 was issued to the applicant and the principal borrower and the guarantors calling upon them to repay the outstanding loan due within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the demand notice. Certified copies of Annexure A3 acknowledgment cards which was produced by the defendant in MC No. No. 6/2023 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam was obtained and produced by the applicant along with the SA. A perusal of the same shows that the demand notice was received by the wife of the applicant and also on behalf of her husband and Smt. Sarada Vasu . It is also seen that demand notice was served to other guarantors.

¶18

Page 2 of 5

¶19

SA No.315/2023

¶20

Indisputably, the applicant, the borrower and other guarantors did not send any objection/representation to the demand notice. They also failed to response to the terms of the demand notice. Therefore, possession notice was issued for symbolically taking physical possession of the secured asset. Subsequently, the defendant approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and filed application and affidavit under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Order came to be passed appointing advocate commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. The advocate commissioner issued Annexure A1 notice dated 30.05.2023 to the applicant, principal borrowers and other guarantors informing them that he would take possession of the secured asset on or after 14 days from the date of receipt of the notice.

¶21

The counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that prior to classification of the loan account as NPA, no intimation was given to the applicant , the borrower and other guarantors and that hence, entire measures taken by the defendant is vitiated and that the applicant is still ready to pay the outstanding liability to the defendant bank, if the chitty loan is sanctioned by the KSFE, Kacherippaddy branch. Apart from the aforesaid contentions, no other contention has been raised by the defendant with regard to the measures initiated by the defendant under section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶22

The counsel appearing for the defendant submitted that there is no illegality in the measures initiated by the defendant and the order passed in MC No. No.6/2023 for taking physical possession of the secured asset and that the SA may be dismissed with cost to the defendant.

¶23

The applicant has not averred in the SA as to whether the statutory requirements contemplated under clauses (i) to (ix) to the proviso of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was not complied with the defendant in respect of filing of application and affidavit in MC No.6/2023. There is also no challenge in the SA with regard to the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam in MC No. No.6/2023 appointing Advocate commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. Without challenging the aforesaid measures, challenging Annexure A1 notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner is untenable.

¶24

Page 3 of 5

¶25

SA No.315/2023

¶26

The applicant has failed to prove his case so as to get the reliefs sought for in the SA.

¶27

In the result SA No.315/2023 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27^th day of August, 2025.

¶29

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

al/-

Page 4 of 5

SA No.315/2023

List of documents filed by the Applicant along with the SA

¶34

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	30.05.2023	True copy of the notice sent by the advocate commissioner to the applicant through registered post.	Annexure-A1
2.	11.12.2020	True copy of the demand notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, which is produced by defendant bank in MC 6/2023.	Annexure-A2
3.	…..	True copy of the acknowledgment card produced by defendant bank as of that of applicant in MC,6/2023.	Annexure-A3
4.	17.12.2018	True copy of the guarantee deed produced by defendant bank in MC 6/2023 before the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Court.	Annexure-A4

¶35

List of documents filed by the defendant along with the written statement.

¶36

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	04.12.2018	True copy of the loan sanctioning order bearing No.023/48215LN768/2023	Annexure B1
2.	11.12.2019	True photocopy of the Gehan	Annexure B2
3.	06.03.2022	True photocopy of the Section 13 (4) Notice published by the defendant in New Sunday Express Daily	Annexure B3
4.	6.3.2022	True photocopy of the Section 13(4) Notice published by the defendant in Malayala Manorama Daily.	Annexure B3 (a)

¶37

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶38

al/-

¶39

Page 5 of 5

Manoj Cm v. Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Cm 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

State Bank of India versus Sh Resham Singh @ Sher Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Swaran Singh

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sh. Baldev Singh Arora (Now Deceased)

Federal Bank versus Sreekumar K

State Bank of India versus M/S Raghav Oil Mills and Ors.

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Maninderjeet Kaur