Dismissed

Jjisha Varghese v. Manappuram Finance Ltd.

DRT5 Dec 2025SA/433/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Securitization Application, the applicant sought to set aside recovery measures and claim compensation, arguing illegal NPA classification and non-compliance with SARFAESI Act requirements. The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the applicant lacked locus standi to challenge measures concerning her husband's property, and she failed to prove non-compliance with statutory requ

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application stood dismissed with no order as to costs.

Jjisha Varghese versus Manappuram Finance Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 5^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶4

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

¶5

S.A No. 433 of 2022

¶6

Between

¶7

Jisha Varghese, Flat No.2C, Palm Shade, Skyline Apartment, Edappally, Cochin-682 024.

¶8

--- Applicant

¶9

And

¶10

The Authorized Officer, Manappuram Finance Limited, Cheruparambath Road, Kadavanthra, Ernakulam – 682 020.

¶11

--- Defendant

¶12

This Securitization Application coming on 22.08.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mr. Jithendran, Advocate, representing the Counsel for the Applicant and Mr. Arun Ashok Iyyani, Advocate representing the Counsel on record 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

O R D E R

¶14

This Securitisation Application was filed on 03.09.2023 seeking to set aside all the steps taken by the defendant under SARFAESI Act,

¶15

SA No.433 of 2022

¶16

2002 and order payment of compensation to the applicant for the loss sustained.

¶17

The applicant has averred in the SA that she is a guarantor to the credit facility availed by the M/s. Doortrend India (Pvt) Ltd. from the defendant Bank. But the above averment of the applicant is stoutly refuted by the defendant in the written statement contending that the applicant, her husband Mr.Varghese Annekal and M/s.Doortrend India (Pvt)Ltd., as borrower and co-borrower availed the credit facility from the defendant bank. A perusal of Annexure A1 demand notice strengthens the above contention of the defendant.

¶18

There is no dispute with regard to creation of equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds by the applicant’s husband Mr. Varghese Annickal with the defendant bank over his immovable property admeasuring 1803 Sq.ft. of apartment along with 1.41% undivided share of the land admeasuring 80.225 cents situated in Re.Sy. No. 12 of 3 of Thrikkakkara North Village, Kanyannur Taluk, Ernakulam District.

¶19

The applicant has not specifically averred in the SA as to whether they were prompt in repayment of the outstanding loan due. However, it is revealed from the written statement of the defendant and also Annexure A1 demand notice dated 23.3.2021 that due to default in repayment of the outstanding loan due, the loan account of the borrower and the co-borrowers came to be classified as NonPerforming Asset on 4.8.2015.

¶20

Annexure A1 demand notice issued by the defendant was served on the applicant and the co-borrowers. Indisputably they neither sent objection/representation to the demand notice nor did they clear off their liability due to the bank.

¶21

Therefore, the defendant approached the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court(MP/MLAs) Ernakulam and filed application and affidavit under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Order came to be passed in M.C No.194/2021 appointing Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner issued Annexure A2 notice dated 12.8.2022 to the applicant and the co-borrowers informing them that he would take physical possession of the secured asset after the expiry of 14 days from the date of issuance of the notice. The applicant has filed

¶22

Page 2 of 5

¶23

SA No.433 of 2022

¶24

this SA against the above said measures on the ground that she is an aggrieved person.

¶25

The counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the classification of the loan account as Non-Performing Asset is illegal and arbitrary, since the credit facilities were operating within the permitted limits and that exorbitant rates of interest has been charged and that application and affidavit filed by the defendant in M.C No.194/2021 is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and that therefore, the SA may be allowed as prayed for.

¶26

The counsel appearing for the defendant submitted that since the applicant and the co-borrowers defaulted in repayment of the outstanding loan due, the loan account was classified as NonPerforming Asset as per RBI guidelines and that the secured asset does not belong to the applicant and that the husband of the applicant is the title holder of the secured asset and that hence, the applicant has no locus standi to challenge the measures initiated by the defendant in respect of the property of the applicant’s husband and that interest has been charged as per the terms of the contract and that the requirements contemplated under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 has been complied with in respect of filing of the application and affidavit in M.C. No.194/2021 and that therefore, SA may be dismissed with costs to the defendant.

¶27

The contention of the defendant that the applicant’s husband is the title holder of the secured asset is neither challenged nor refuted by the applicant. In Annexure A1 demand notice also, it is specifically averred that the husband of the applicant created security interest by way of deposit of title deeds in respect of his immovable property. Therefore, it is evident that the applicant has no locus standi to challenge the measures initiated in respect of the secured asset. On this ground alone, this SA is not maintainable.

¶28

The applicant has not produced any material before this Tribunal in order to prove her contention that exorbitant rate of interest has been charged.

¶29

The applicant has not produced the copy of the application and affidavit filed by the defendant in M.C No.194/2021 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, (MP/MLAs) , Ernakulam in

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

SA No.433 of 2022

¶32

order to prove her contention that the statutory requirements under clauses (i) to (ix) to the provision of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 has not been complied with. The applicant has also not challenged the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, (MP/MLAs), Ernakulam in M.C.No.194/2021. Without challenging the above order, the mere challenge made by the applicant in respect of Annexure A2 notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner is unsustainable.

¶33

The applicant having failed to establish her case is not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the SA.

¶34

Resultantly, SA No.433/2022 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 5^th day of December, 2025.

¶36

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

al/

Page 4 of 5

SA No.433 of 2022

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

¶41

Sl.	Date	Particulars
No.
1.	23.02.2021	True copy of the Demand Notice	Annexure-A1
2.	12.08.2022	True copy of the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner	Annexure-A2

¶42

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶43

al/

¶44

Page 5 of 5

Jjisha Varghese v. Manappuram Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jjisha Varghese v. Manappuram Finance 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

Mr Satya Narayan Prasad versus Union Bank of India

Sangeeta Agrawal versus Punjab National Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Madhuri and Anr.

Mr Aloke Bhattacharjee And Anr. versus Axis Bank

State Bank of India versus M/S Steel House Private Limited

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Nagarathnamma