Dismissed

Radhika Jayaprakash v. State Bank of India

DRT15 May 2025SA/353/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Securitization Application, the Debt Recovery Tribunal addressed a challenge to steps taken by a bank under the SARFAESI Act. The applicant claimed interest miscalculations and inadequate notice details. The Tribunal found the applicant estopped due to lack of objection and upheld the bank's compliance with statutory requirements.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

Radhika Jayaprakash versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 15^th DAY OF MAY, 2025

¶4

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

¶5

S.A No. 353 of 2024

¶6

Between

¶7

Radhika Jayaprakash, Padinjakkara House, Puthiyagate Canal Road, Amayur P.O., Pattambi, Palakkad – 679 307.

¶8

--- Applicant

¶9

And

¶10

The Authorized Officer, State Bank of India, M.G. Road, Ernakulam – 682 011.

¶11

--- Defendant

¶12

This Securitization Application coming on 05.03.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mr. Jithendran S., Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Ms. Thankom Mukundakrishnan, Advocate appearing for the Defendant and upon hearing arguments of learned Counsels for both the sides’ and upon perusing the material on records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Securitisation Application was filed on 02.05.2024 seeking to set aside all the steps taken by the defendant bank under the SARFAESI Act 2002 and to order payment of compensation to the applicant.

¶15

SA No.353 of 2024

¶16

It is not in dispute that the applicant and her husband Mr.Jayaprakash availed credit facility to a tune of Rs.97,00,000/from the defendant bank in the year 2015. Creation of equitable mortgage over the applicant’s property admeasuring an extent of 7.44 Ares in Re.Sy. No.204/8 situated at Koppam Village, Ottapalam Taluk, Palakkad District and an extent of 21.87 Ares inRe.sy. No.132/6-9 at Chalavara village, Ottapalam Taluk, Palakkad District as the collateral securities for the aforesaid credit facilities is admitted by the applicant in the S.A.

¶17

The applicant has averred in the SA that due to unseen financial difficulties, they could not remit few of monthly installments. It is the contention of the defendant in the written statement that due to default, the loan account was declared as NPA on 24.05.2023. Hence it is evident that since the applicant and her husband defaulted in repayment of the outstanding loan due to the defendant bank.

¶18

Annexure-A1 demand notice dated 26.10.2023 to the applicant and her husband was issued to them 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 receipt of the demand notice is admitted by the applicant. Indisputably, they neither sent any objection/representation to the demand notice nor did they clear off their liability due to the defendant bank.

¶19

Therefore, the defendant issued Annexure-A2 Possession Notice dated 30.12.2023 for taking physical possession of the secured assets. Annexure-B1 to B3 produced by the defendant evidences the affixture of the possession notice on the conspicuous part of the secured asset and publication of the possession notice in The New Indian Express daily dated 02.01.2024 and Mathrubhoomi daily dated 02.01.2024.

¶20

Thereafter the defendant approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad and filed Annexure-A3 application and Annexure-A4 affidavit under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Annexure-A5 Order dated 02.02.2024 came to be passed in MC No.68/2024 appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured assets. The Advocate Commissioner issued notice dated 16.02.2024 Annexure-A6 to the applicant and her husband informing them that he would take physical possession of the secured assets within 15 days from the date of receipt of the above notice. The applicant having aggrieved against the above measures filed this SA seeking for the reliefs stated supra.

¶21

The counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that interest has been charged against the contract and due to capitalization of the penal interest, default occurred. Annexure-A1 demand notice does not provide the details of the amount owed by the applicant and

¶22

Page 2 of 5

¶23

SA No.353 of 2024

¶24

bifurcation of interest. Secured interest was not registered with the Central Registry. Accurate details with regard to the buildings and the structures in the secured asset was not described in Annexure-A3 petition. Therefore, S.A may be allowed as prayed for.

¶25

The counsel appearing for the defendant submitted that interest has been charged as per agreement and RBI guidelines. All the requisite details are incorporated in the demand notice. The description of the property is correctly furnished in Annexure-A3 application and A4 affidavit. The total credit facility availed by the applicant and the total outstanding amount as on the date of filing of the application and affidavit is mentioned in Annexure-A3 application and A4 affidavit. Security interest has been registered with Central Registry. Therefore, SA may be dismissed with cost to the defendant.

¶26

Though, the applicant has contended that interest has not been charged as per contract, she has not produced any material to prove the above contention. She has also not specifically averred in the SA as to how interest has been capitalized. Indisputably, in Annexure-A1 demand notice, the quantum of credit facilities availed by the applicant and her husband is not specifically mentioned. However, total outstanding liability as on 26.10.2023 to the tune of Rs.1,11,53,826/- is mentioned in the demand notice. The applicant having failed to send any objection to the demand notice is estopped from contending now that total credit facilities granted to them is not stated in the demand notice. Further, the applicant has not averred in the SA as to what prejudice was caused to her and her husband due to non- mentioning of the quantum of credit facilities availed by them. Therefore, the above contention of the counsel for the applicant does not hold good.

¶27

In Annexure-A3 application, the description of the secured assets with boundaries as per Deeds Nos.4633/2011 and 4574/2011 has been correctly mentioned. In Annexure-A4 affidavit also, the description of the properties has been correctly furnished.

¶28

Annexure-B5 copy of ID Based search report produced by the defendant shows that security interest over the secured assets was registered with the Central Registry on 01.09.2016.

¶29

Apart from the aforesaid contentions raised by the applicant in the SA, there is no specific contention in the SA as to whether the statutory requirement contemplated under Clause (i) to (ix) to the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 was not complied with and that Annexure-A5 order was passed without application of mind by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Palakkad. However, a perusal of Annexure-A4 affidavit shows that all the details contemplated under Clause (i) to (ix) to the proviso of Section 14 (1) of

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

SA No.353 of 2024

¶32

the SARFAESI Act 2002 has been furnished. A perusal of AnnexureA5 order shows that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad after having perused the contents of the affidavit and the documents filed in support of the affidavit, and having satisfied over the same, passed order appointing Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. This Tribunal does no find any procedural irregularity in respect of issuance of demand notice, possession notice and filing of application and affidavit in MC No.68/2024 and the order passed in MC 68/2024.

¶33

The applicant has failed to prove her case so as to get the reliefs sought for in the SA. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal holds that the applicant is not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in this SA.

¶34

Resultantly, S.A No.353/2024 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15^th day of May, 2025.

¶36

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 4 of 5

SA No.353 of 2024

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

¶41

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	26.10.2023	True copy of the demand notice issued to the applicant by the defendant bank.	Annexure-A1
2.	30.12.2023	True copy of the possession notice issued to the applicant by the defendant bank.	Annexure-A2
3.	03.01.2024	True copy of the application in MC No.68/24 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Palakkad.	Annexure-A3
4.	03.01.2024	True copy of the affidavit in MC No.68/24 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Palakkad.	Annexure-A4
5.	02.02.2024	True copy of the Order in MC No.68/24 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Palakkad.	Annexure-A5
6.	16.02.2024	True copy of the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner.	Annexure-A6

¶42

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

¶43

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	---	Photocopy of photograph evidencing affixture ofpossession notice.	Annexure-B1
2.	02.01.2024	Photocopy of publication of possession noticein TheNew Indian Express	Annexure-B2
3.	02.01.2024	Photocopy of publication of possession noticein Mathrubhumidaily.	Annexure-B3
4.	---	Photocopy of A/D card in respect of the demand notice to the borrower/ mortgagor along with confirmation from the post office.	Annexure-B4
5.	---	True copy of the CERSAI certificate	Annexure-B5

(Su. WILLYAHM)

PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 5 of 5

Radhika Jayaprakash v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhika Jayaprakash 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Classic Steel Traders versus Indian Overseas Bank

M/s Exalt Educational Trust and others versus Union Bank of India

Ms Noor Enterprises and others versus Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus Manoj Kumar Choudhary

Bank of India versus Kumar Shanu

State Bank of India versus Joseph Barnad C