Dismissed

Jithin Jayakrishnan v. The Shoranur Co. operative Urban Bank Ltd.

DRT12 Feb 2025SA/418/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Securitization Application, the applicant challenged the legality of a bank's demands notice and S. 14 application filed under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Tribunal held that the Authorised Officer acted validly and the statutory requirements were met regarding the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed. No costs.

Jithin Jayakrishnan versus The Shoranur Co. operative Urban… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 12^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

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

¶5

S.A No. 418 of 2024

¶6

Between

¶7

Mr. Jithin Jayakrishnan, S/o. Jayakrishnan, Palatt House, Chalavara P.O Ottapalam, Palakkad-679 505.

¶8

--- Applicant

¶9

And

¶10

The Shoranur Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. Head Office Shoranur, Shoranur, Palakkad -679 121, Represented by its Authorized Officer.

¶11

--- Defendant

¶12

This Securitization Application coming on 17.12.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mr. Dileep Chandran, Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Ms. Jayasree K.P., appearing for the defendant and upon hearing arguments of learned Counsels for both the parties and upon perusing the material on records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶13

SA No.418 of 2024

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This Securitisation Application was filed on 04.06.2024 seeking to declare that Annexure-A3 to A5 are illegal and to direct the defendant to restrain themselves from proceeding against the property described in Annexure-A5 and to direct the defendant to pay cost of this proceedings to the applicant.

¶16

The applicant has admitted in the SA that he and his father availed overdraft facility of Rs.70,00,000/- from the defendant bank upon creation of security interest over the immovable property belonging to his father. He has categorically admitted in para 2 of the SA that due to financial stringency, he could not make repayment regularly. The defendant has averred in the written statement that due to the default committed by the applicant in repaying the loan amount properly, his loan account was classified as NPA on 01.05.2023.

¶17

The defendant bank issued Annexure-B1 Demand Notice dated 03.08.2023 to the applicant and the co-borrower calling upon them to repay the outstanding loan due within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the demand notice. Annexure-B2 copy of acknowledgement card evidences the receipt of the Demand Notice by the applicant.

¶18

Annexure-B3 representation dated 05.09.2023 was submitted by the applicant to the General Manager of the defendant bank requesting to grant one year time to repay the debt due to the defendant bank. The Authorised Officer of the defendant bank sent reply dated 14.09.2023 Annexure-B4 to the applicant informing him that his request to grant one year time could not be considered. The applicant sent another representation dated 05.10.2023 Annexure-B5 to the Authorised Officer of the defendant bank. The Authorised Officer of the defendant bank issued reply dated 16.10.2023, Annexure-B6 to the applicant. Therefore, it is evident that the representation submitted by the applicant for Annexure-B1 Demand Notice was duly replied by the defendant bank.

¶19

The defendant approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Palakkad and filed Annexure-A5 application and affidavit under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Annexure-A4 Order dated 04.05.2024 came to be passed appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner issued Annexure-A3 notice dated 23.05.2024 to the applicant and the co-borrower informing them that he would take physical possession of the secured asset. The applicant having

¶20

Page 2 of 6

¶21

SA No.418 of 2024

¶22

aggrieved against the above measures, filed this S.A seeking for the reliefs stated supra.

¶23

The provisions under Sec.13 (12) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 provides that the rights of a secured creditor under this Act may be exercised by one or more of his Officers authorize in this behalf in such manner as may be prescribed. Rule 2 (a) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 defines the “Authorised Officer” an Officer not less than a Chief Manager of a Public Sector Bank or equivalent, as specified by the Board of Directors of Board of Trustees of the secured creditor or any other person or authority exercising powers of Superintendents, direction and control of the business or affairs of the secured creditor as the case may be, to exercise the rights of a secured creditor under the Act. Hence the contention raised by the applicant that Demand Notice issued by the Authorised Officer and AnnexureA5 application Annexure-A5 filed by the Authorised Officer is not permissible under the SARFAESI Act, lacks merits.

¶24

The applicant has not specifically raised any contention in the SA as to whether the statutory requirements contemplated under Clause (i) to (ix) to the proviso of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was not complied with by the defendant bank. However, a perusal of affidavit Annexure-A5 shows that all the details contemplated under Clause (i) to (ix) to the proviso of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 were furnished. A perusal of Annexure-A4 order shows that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Palakkad after having perused the contents of the affidavit and the documents produced in support of the affidavit and after having satisfied over, passed order appointing Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. This Tribunal does not find any infirmary or irregularity in Annexure-A4 order.

¶25

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

¶26

Resultantly, S.A No.418 of 2024 stands dismissed. No costs.

¶27

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12^th day of February, 2025.

¶28

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 3 of 6

SA No.418 of 2024

S C H E D U L E

All part and parcel of land having an extent of 0.2186 Hectors in Re. Sy. No.52/2 in Chalavara Village, Ottappalam Taluk, Palakkad District.

¶34

Boundaries

¶35

East	: Land owned by Pokker
North	: Panchayath Road
West	: Road and Pond
South	: Property of Palatt House.

¶36

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶37

Page 4 of 6

¶38

SA No.418 of 2024

¶39

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

¶40

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	12.12.2022	True copy of the CT report.	Annexure-A1
2.	---	True copy of the account statement.	Annexure-A2
3.	23.05.2024	True copy of the Advocate Commissioner notice.	Annexure-A3
4.	04.05.2024	True copy of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Palakkad in MC198/2024	Annexure-A4
5.	06.04.2024	True copy of Sec.14 application and affidavit.	Annexure-A5

¶41

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

¶42

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	03.08.2023	True copy of the Demand Notice issued by the defendant bankto theapplicant	Annexure-B1
2.	07.08.2023	True copy of the A/D card signed by the applicant.	Annexure-B2
3.	05.09.2023	True copy of the representation submitted by the applicant before the General Managerofthe defendant bank	Annexure-B3
4.	---	True English translation of Annexure- B3	Annexure- B3(a)
5.	14.09.2023	True copy of the reply issued by the banktoAnnexure-B3letter.	Annexure-B4
6.	---	True English translation of Annexure- B4	Annexure- B4(a)
7.	05.10.2023	True copy of the representation submitted by the applicant before the Bank.	Annexure-B5
8.	16.10.2023	True copy of the reply issued by the BanktoAnnexure-B5	Annexure-B6

¶43

Page 5 of 6

¶44

SA No.418 of 2024

¶45

9.	01.04.2023	True copy of the relevant page of the circular No.DOR.STRREC 3/21.04.048/ 2023-24 issued by theRBI	Annexure-B7
10.	---	Copy of Registration of Security Interest andAcknowledgementReport.	Annexure-B8

¶46

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶47

Mj/

¶48

Page 6 of 6

Jithin Jayakrishnan v. The Shoranur Co. operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jithin Jayakrishnan v. The Shoranur Co. operative Urban 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 M/S Jai Bajrang Minerals Proprietor / Leagal Heir Smt. Yogini Wd/o Gaurishankar Motghare

Renu Prasad versus Axis Bank

Ms Abacus Infocon Pvt. Ltd. and others versus Punjab National Bank

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Sharanabasappa Alias Sharanabasappa Police Patil

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Saurabh Sharma

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Deepak Sharma