In a securitization application filed by a borrower challenging possession proceedings, the Debts Recovery Tribunal rejected the claim that recovery should have proceeded via salary deduction from the co-borrower rather than enforcement against the secured asset.
The application for setting aside the securitization proceeding is dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH
PRESIDING OFFICER
Dated this the 16th day of September, 2025
SECURITISATION APPLICATION No.356/2025
Between
Preethy Mole, Aged 44 years, D/o. Vijayan, Akshaya, Nanthirikal, Vellimon P.O., Kollam – 691 511.
…Applicant
And
State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch,
LMS Compound, Opp: Museum West Gate, Vikas Bhavan P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 033, Represented by it’s Chief Manager.
RASMEC, Lotus Tower, Kottarakkara, Kollam, PIN - 691 531.
S/o. Jerome, Akshaya, Nanthirikal, Vellimon P.O., Kollam, PIN 691 511.
SA 356/2025
2
having present address Mr. Sunil J., Staff, O/o. Sub Regional Transport Office, Pathanapuram, Kollam District, PIN - 689 695. ……Defendants
This Securitization Application having been heard on 08.09.2025 in the presence of Advocates M/s. Babu Cherukara & Albert Abey V.S. for the applicant and Advocate M/s. K.P.Sujesh Kumar & Keerthi K.Narayan for the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and Advocates M/s. Johnson Gomez, Sanjay Johnson, Sanjith Johnson, Arun Johny, Deebu R. & Abin Jacob Mathew for defendant No.3 and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:
F I N A L O R D E R
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 applicant/borrower has filed this SA under S.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act.
Brief facts of the case :
by the Advocate Commissioner to tale physical possession of the secured asset. It is averred in the SA that the applicant and her
SA 356/2025
3
husband being the joint owner of the subject matter property availed housing loan from the Punjab National Bank Limited. Subsequently the loan was taken over by State Bank of India. The loan was sanctioned on the basis of salary account of her husband, who is the 3rd defendant in this case, working in the State Motor Vehicle Department. They were repaying the loan regularly.
2.1 After death of their son in a motor road traffic accident, the relationship between the applicant and 3rd defendant became strained, which led the matrimonial dispute before the Family Court and a compromise was arrived that a sum of Rs.5,000/- would be paid as maintenance and the EMI for the loan would be paid by her husband, the 3rd defendant.
2.2 Her husband did not owner the terms of compromise and he did not repay the amount. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 initiated MC No.283/2022 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam to take possession of the secured asset and accordingly an Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate issued notice to take possession of the secured asset. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 did not take any step to recover the loan from the salary account of her husband, instead they proceeded with the securitization proceeding to take physical possession of the secured asset. Hence the measure taken by the defendant Nos1 and 2 is illegal and the same may be set aside.
SA 356/2025
4
3.1 The defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed written statement denying the averments and claimed inter alia that the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam is in accordance with the statutory requirement. In absence of any illegality, interference with the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is not warranted.
3.2 The applicant and her husband availed housing loan of Rs.25,00,000/- by creating equitable mortgage over the subject matter property. Due to non-repayment, the loan was classified as ‘NPA’ and a demand notice was issued calling them to pay the outstanding amount. But they did not take any interest to repay the loan. A separate OA No.855/2024 was filed for recovery of the amount. The step was also taken in the securitization measure to recover the loan. After calling of the statutory requirement, a collusive case was filed before the Family Court as well as before this Forum by the applicant. In absence of any illegality, interference with the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is not required. Hence the SA may be dismissed.
SA 356/2025
5
FINDINGS:
Point No.(i) & (ii):
3rd defendant is deriving any income and there is any
SA 356/2025
6
matrimonial dispute with the petitioner, the defendants cannot be forced to proceed against the 3rd defendant only and not to proceed against the secured asset. Hence the contention is totally untenable and hence the SA may be dismissed.
Hence it is ordered:-
ORDER
SA 356/2025
7
the defendants due to unnecessary delay caused in the securitization proceeding.
(Dictated to my PA, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 16th day of September, 2025).
[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER
SA 356/2025
8
Documents on the part of the applicant
| Annexures | Date | Particulars of documents |
|---|---|---|
| Annexure-A1 | True copy of Bank Account Statement of State Bank of India in the loan Account No.40360192067. |
|
| Annexure-A2 | True copy of the order in MC No.283/2022 and also the accompanying terms of compromise. |
|
| Annexure-A2(a) | True English translation of Malayalam portion of Annexure-A2. |
|
| Annexure-A3 | 04.04.2025 | True copy of the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant in the OA No.855/2024 of this Hon’ble Tribunal. |
| Annexure-A4 | 13.03.2025 | True copy of the lawyer notice issued to the defendants 1 and 2. |
| Annexure-A5 | 07.04.2025 | True copy of the reply received from Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India. |
| Annexure-A6 | True copy of the possession notice issued to the applicant with possession dated 29.08.2024 by the 1stdefendant. |
|
| Annexure-A7 | True copy of notice issued by the advocate commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam in MC No.424/2025 in the application filed under the SARFAESI Act, notice dated 12.05.2025. |
|
| Annexure-A7(a) | 07.03.2025 | Copy of the Order in MC No.424/2025 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam. |
SA 356/2025
9
Documents on the part of the defendant Nos.1 and 2
Annexure
Date Particulars of documents
Annexure-B1 10.06.2024 True copy of the demand notice issued by the first defendant under the SARFAESI Act.
Documents on the part of the defendant No.3 : NIL
PRESIDING OFFICER
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER
Dated this the 16th day of September, 2025
S A No.356/2025
Between
Preethy Mole, Aged 44 years, D/o. Vijayan, Akshaya, Vellimon P.O., Kollam – 691 511. ... Applicant
And
The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, LMS Compound, Opp: Museum Gate, Vikas Bhavan P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 033, Represented by its Chief Manager and Others. …Defendants
F I N A L O R D E R
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to relief as the securitization proceeding should have been recovered from the husband's salary account instead of the secured asset.
Preethy Mole
The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India
Mr. Sunil J.
Sovan Kumar Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
