Dismissed

Sudheer C G v. Union Bank of India

DRT15 Jul 2025SA/348/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's application to set aside a securitization notice and a Magistrate order. The court held the notice regarding a home loan not disputable due to lack of enforcement action, while no illegality was found regarding a cash credit loan notice.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed without costs; no severance of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate held.

Sudheer C G versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Dated this the 15^th day of July, 2025

¶4

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.348/2025

¶5

Between

¶6

Sudheer C.G., TC 2070 Sravanam, Karimanal, Kulathoor P.O., Attipra, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 583. …Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

The Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India, Bhargavinilayam, 03/2359(1), Kulathoor P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 583. …Defendant

¶9

This Securitization Application having been heard on 01.07.2025 in the presence of Advocate M/s. Sasi N. & Jithendran S. for the applicant and Advocates M/s. Sadchith P.Kurup, C.P.Anil Raj, A.S.P. Kurup, Athira Vijayan, B.Sreedevi & Siva Suresh for the defendant stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:

¶10

F I N A L O R D E R

¶11

Challenging the securitization proceeding initiated by the defendant under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security

¶12

SA 348/2025

¶13

¶14

Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act’), the applicant/borrower has filed this SA under S.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶15

Brief facts of the case :

¶16

2.1 In the SA the applicant has averred that he along with his wife availed Home Loan from the defendant bank by mortgaging the subject matter property. Due to sudden loss incurred by the applicant, some delay occurred in repayment. Consequently, the defendant bank initiated securitization proceeding and issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act dated 08.11.2024 calling the applicant to pay the outstanding amount.

¶17

2.2 After receipt of the demand notice, the applicant contacted the bank to regularize the loan by making remittance. The defendant issued a fresh demand notice on 05.04.2025. The defendant proceeded in filing M.C. No.514/2025 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram and an Order was passed on 16.04.2025. After issuance of fresh demand notice, steps taken by the defendant based upon the earlier demand notice is illegal and not sustainable. Hence the applicant has filed this case to set aside the Order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the securitization proceeding based upon the demand notice dated 08.11.2024.

¶18

SA 348/2025

¶19

¶20

The defendant filed written statement denying the averments in the SA and claimed inter alia that the applicant availed 2 loans, i.e., one Housing Loan on 26.09.2017 and the cash credit loan of Rs.20 lakhs on 31.12.2018 by creating security interest over the subject matter property. Annexure-A1 demand notice was issued in respect of the cash credit loan and the Annexure-A2 demand notice was issued in respect of the Housing Loan. The application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram in respect of the cash credit loan for which demand notice Annexurwe-A1 is issued. Hence there is no illegality in the proceeding. The SA, being devoid of any merit, may be dismissed.

¶21

From the respective case of both the parties, the

¶22

following points are emerged for adjudication in this case:

¶23

(i) Whether the securitization proceeding initiated by the defendant suffers from any illegality, defect or irregularity to intervene with the same?

¶24

(ii) Whether the applicant is entitled to get any relief in this case?

SA 348/2025

FINDINGS:

Point Nos.(i) & (ii):

¶29

Admittedly, the applicant availed 2 separate loans from the defendant bank by mortgaging the subject matter property. Annexure-A1 demand notice was issued in respect of CC-Union Trade Loan Account No.336405040053126, calling the applicant to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.20,65,561.04 and the 2^nd demand notice Annexure-A2 was issued in respect of the Union Home Loan Account No.336406650081650, calling the applicant to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.27,43,242.42. In fact, no further measure is taken in pursuance of Annexure-A2 demand notice. In absence of taking measure under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act in respect of Annexure-A2 demand notice, the SA is not maintainable in challenging such demand notice.

¶30

In respect of Annexure-A1 demand notice, the applicant has not pleaded any illegality or irregularity in the securitization proceeding. In absence of any illegality, interference with the securitization proceeding is not warranted. Hence both the points are answered against the applicant.

¶31

SA 348/2025

¶32

¶33

Hence it is ordered:-

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

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

¶36

of any merit, is hereby dismissed but in the circumstances, without costs.

¶37

(Dictated to my PA, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 15^th day of July, 2025).

¶38

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶39

SA 348/2025

¶40

¶41

Documents on the part of the applicant

¶42

Annexures Date Particulars of documents Annexure-A1 08.11.2024 True copy of demand notice. Annexure-A2 05.04.2025 True copy of demand notice. Annexure-A3 16.04.2025 True copy of CJM Order.

¶43

Documents on the part of the defendant

¶44

Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
Exhibit-R1(1)	…..	True copy of the petition	with
		affidavit in MC No.514/2025	filed
		before the CJM C Thiruvananthapuram.	ourt,
Exhibit-R1(2)	…..	True copy of the CE certificate with respect to property in the demand notice	RSAI the .

¶45

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶46

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶47

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶48

Dated this the 15^th day of July, 2025

¶49

S A No.348/2025

¶50

Between

¶51

Sudheer C.G., TC 2070 Sravanam, Karimanal, Kulathoor P.O., Attipra, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 583.

¶52

…Applicant

¶53

And

¶54

The Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India, Bhargavinilayam, 03/2359(1), Kulathoor P.O., Thiruvananthapuram–695 583.

¶55

…Defendant

¶56

F I N A L O R D E R

Sudheer C G v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudheer C G v. Union Bank of India

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 Smt. Soni Singh

Central Bank of India versus M/s Garden Enterprises

Ms Sheetal Copy Udyog versus Central Bank of India

Mr Prasanto Ghosh versus Punjab National Bank (United Bank of India)

Diwakar Kumar versus Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank

Idbi Bank versus Sri Keshav Kumar and Others