This asset recovery case disposed of a securitization application under the SARFAESI Act. The Debts Recovery Tribunal held that a Section 13(4) possession notice is not a pre-condition for initiating Section 14 proceedings, dismissing the applicant's claim of illegality.
The Securitization Application (SA) is dismissed without costs.
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 23th June, 2025
SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.433/2024
Between
George Thomas Nellicken, Aged 42, S/o.Thomas Nellicken, Kacharamattom Nellickal House, Valavoor P.O., Pala, Kottayam District – 686 635. …Applicant
And
Rep. by Prashanth Krishnan, Aged 41 years, S/o. Late C.P. Prathapan, HDFC Bank Ltd., HDFC House, P.O. No.1667, Ravipuram Junction, MG Road, Kochi, Ernakulam, PIN 682 015.
Deepu Rajagopal for the applicant and Advocate Shri. Anto Thomas
Adipuzha for the defendants, 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 proceeding 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 has filed this SA under S.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. Brief facts of the case :
2.1. In the SA it is pleaded by the applicant that he availed a housing loan from the defendants by creating security interest over the subject matter property. Due to financial crisis, the applicant could not repay the loan in time. Consequently, the defendants proceeded with the securitization measure and issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act calling the applicant to pay the amount.
2.2. It is claimed in the SA that the applicant was not served with any possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The defendants proceeded to file application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act bearing M.C. No.82/2024 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta, which is illegal and arbitrary. The Advocate Commissioner issued a notice to take possession of the secured asset, which is impugned in this SA.
FINDINGS:
Point Nos.(i) & (ii):
“36. Thus, there will be three methods for the secured creditor to take possession of the secured assets:
(i) The first method would be where the secured creditor gives the requisite notice under Rule 8(1) and where he does not meet with any resistance. In that case, the authorised officer will proceed to take steps as stipulated under Rule 8(2) onwards to take possession and thereafter for sale of the secured assets to realise the amounts that are claimed by the secured creditor.
(ii) The second situation will arise where the secured creditor meets with resistance from the borrower after the notice under Rule 8(1) is given. In that case he will take recourse to the mechanism provided under Section 14 of the Act viz. making application to the Magistrate. The Magistrate will scrutinize the application as provided in Section 14, and then if satisfied, appoint an officer subordinate to him as provided under Section 14(1)(A) to take possession of the assets and documents. For that purpose the Magistrate may authorise the officer concerned to use such force as may be necessary. After the possession is taken the assets and documents will be forwarded to the secured creditor.
(iii) The third situation will be one where the secured creditor approaches the Magistrate concerned directly under Section 14 of the Act. The Magistrate will thereafter scrutinize the application as provided in Section 14, and then if satisfied, authorise a subordinate officer to take possession of the assets and documents and forwards them to the secured creditor as under Clause (ii) above.
37. In any of the three situations, after the possession is handed over to the secured creditor, the subsequent specified provisions of Rule 8 concerning the preservation, valuation and sale of the secured assets, and other subsequent rules from the Security Interest (Enforcement) rules, 2002, shall apply.”
In view of this ratio of the Hon’ble Apex Court the contention of the learned counsel on this aspect is not at all acceptable.
clearly considered that there is no procedural illegality in the proceedings. He seeks some breathing time to repay the loan. This Tribunal is only concerned to adjudicate about any illegality or
irregularity in the securitization proceeding. The applicant has miserably failed to establish any illegality in the proceeding to interfere with the same. If the applicant is interested to settle the loan, he can approach the bank directly for the same. This is not the proper forum to seek such direction. In absence of any illegality, interference with the securitization proceeding is not warranted and hence the applicant is not entitled to get any relief and both the points are answered against the applicants.
Hence it is ordered: -
ORDER
(Dictated to my PA, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 23rd day of June, 2025).
[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER
Documents on the part of the applicant
| Annexures | Date | Particulars of documents |
|---|---|---|
| Annexure-A1 | 27.04.2024 | True copy of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta. |
| Annexure-A2 | True copy of the MC No.82/2024 along with the affidavit filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta. |
|
| Annexure-A3 | 22.06.2024 | True copy of the Advocate Commissioner notice in MC No.82/2024 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta. |
| Annexure-A4 | True copy of the E-court status in MC No.82/2024 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta. |
|
| Annexure-A5 | 29.11.2022 | True copy of the DD. |
| Annexure-A6 | 06.02.2023 | True copy of the receipt from the respondent bank. |
| Annexure-A7 | 09.03.2023 | True copy of the receipt from the respondent bank. |
| Annexure-A8 Doc |
uments on the | True copy of the Account Statement dated nil. part of the defendants |
| Annexure-B1 | 25.03.2019 | The true copy of the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C) 8918 of 2019. |
| Annexure-B2 | 03.11.2022 | The true Copy of the Judgment in W.P.(C) No.25076/2022 on the files of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. |
PRESIDING OFFICER
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER
Dated the 23rd June, 2025
SA No.433/2024
Between
George Thomas Nellicken, Aged 42, S/o.Thomas Nellicken, Kacharamattom Nellickal House, Valavoor P.O., Pala, Kottayam District, PIN – 686 635. …Applicant
And
The Authorised Officer, HDFC Bank Ltd., HDFC House, P.O. No.1667, Ravipuram Junction, MG Road, Kochi, Ernakulam, PIN 682 015.
Rep. by Prashanth Krishnan, Aged 41 years, S/o. Late C.P. Prathapan, HDFC Bank Ltd., HDFC House, P.O. No.1667, Ravipuram Junction, MG Road, Kochi, Ernakulam, PIN 682 015 & Anr. …Defendants
F I N A L O R D E R
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the securitization proceedings initiated by defendants suffer from any illegality, defect or irregularity warranting judicial intervention?
Whether the applicant is entitled to get any relief in this securitization proceeding?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Standard Chartered Bank vs. V.Noble Kumar & othersApplied¶26
2013 KHC 4703
4 provisions across 1 enactments
George Thomas Nellicken
Sovan Kumar Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
