Dismissed

Jithin Jameel v. South Indian Bank

DRT8 Dec 2025SA/454/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed an application to quash securitization proceedings and a demand notice issued by a bank under the SARFAESI Act. The applicant contested the clubbing of loans and claimed forged security documents but failed to prove illegality. The order emphasized that DRT does not adjudicate title or document validity and dismissed the plea of non-compliance regarding the Section 14 affida

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 17(1) of SARFAESI Act dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- payable by applicant to defendants.

Jithin Jameel versus South Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Dated this the 8^th day of December, 2025

¶4

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.454/2023

¶5

Between

¶6

Dr. Jithin Jameel, Aged 42 years, S/o. Sainulabdeen Aboobaker, Kumbalath House, Pallipattumuri, Thrikkunnappuzha P.O., Alappuzha – 690 515, Represented by his Power of Attorney Holder Muhammed Rafi T., Aged 37 years, S/o. Thameem, Residing at Madathinkal House, Panoor, Thrikkunnappuza P.O., Karthikappally Taluk, Alappuzha – 690 515. …Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

The Authorised Officer, The South Indian Bank Ltd., Regional Office, 2^nd Floor, TMJ Complex, Ramanchira, Thiruvalla – 689 107.

¶9

The South Indian Bank Ltd., Regional Office, 2^nd Floor, TMJ Complex, Ramanchira, Thiruvalla – 689 107 Rep. by its Authorised Officer under the SARFAESI Act and the Chief Manager.

¶10

SA 454/2023

¶11

¶12

The South Indian Bank Ltd., Karthikappally Branch, St. Thomas Orthodox Cathedral Building, Karthikappally P.O., Alappuzha District – 690 516. …Defendants

¶13

This Securitization Application having been heard on 05.12.2025 in the presence of Advocate Zakir Hussain counsel for the applicant and Advocate Sunil Shankar counsel for the defendants and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:

¶14

F I N A L O R D E R

¶15

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 praying to quash the demand notice as well as the measure taken under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act including the order passed by the CJM Alappuzha in MC No.285.2023.

¶16

Brief facts of the case :

¶17

2.1 The applicant availed a ‘Kissan Cash Credit and Overdraft limit’ of Rs.60 lakhs towards the expenses of his cultivation over 27.20 Acres of land and his brother Jishar

¶18

SA 454/2023

¶19

¶20

Sainulabdeen stood as the guarantor for the same by creating security interest over an extent of 26.30 Ares of land and building thereon owned by the applicant and his brother. The applicant has also availed another ‘Mobi loan’ of Rs.10 lakhs from the defendant bank. The applicant’s father Sainulabdeen Aboobaker availed a ‘Mobi Loan’ of Rs.38 lakhs from the defendant bank by executing the hypothecation agreement.

¶21

2.2 Due to default in repayment, the defendant bank has issued a notice on 14.08.2018 to the applicant to pay the outstanding amount. It is claimed by the applicant in the SA that he along with the guarantor approached the bank to close their loans by remitting the outstanding amount. But no reply was received.

¶22

2.3 Subsequently the first defendant issued a demand notice on 26.07.2022 claiming the applicant to repay the outstanding amount of Rs.1,57,22,885.53 due under KCC OD and Mobi Loan of his father. It is claimed that the security interest over 26.30 Ares of land in Kumarapuram Village along with the building thereon was created for KCC OD facility only. The said property is not a secured asset for the ‘Mobi Loan’ of his father and clubbing of the same with the KCC OD facility in the demand notice is illegal.

¶23

SA 454/2023

¶24

¶25

2.4. The applicant has approached the defendant bank for OTS but the proposal was not accepted. The applicant moved the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala by filing WP(C) No.33978/2022 seeking relief to direct the defendant bank to reconsider and pass order for ‘OTS’. In spite of direction of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala no decision was taken giving opportunity to the applicant to close the loan on OTS. Subsequently the amount received as compensation from the Special Deputy Collector towards acquisition of land was directly remitted to the loan account. In spite of the same, the defendants proceeded with the securitization proceeding and filed an application under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha to take physical possession of the secured asset, which is impugned in this proceeding. The applicant claims for setting aside the demand notice including all the SARFAESI proceedings and the order passed by the CJM, Alappuzha under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶26

3.1 The defendant contested the case by filing written statement denying the averments and it is claimed that the KCC OD loan availed by the applicant is secured by creating equitable mortgage over 26.30 Ares of land in Kumarapuram Village which is not disputed. So also the applicant and his brother stood as guarantors to the ‘Mobi Loan’ of Rs.38 lakhs availed by his father

¶27

SA 454/2023

¶28

¶29

and other family members which was secured by the extension of the equitable mortgage of the secured asset for the KCC OD facility on 31.12.2014 and the same was registered in the CERSAI portal. Due to default in repayment, the loan was classified as ‘NPA’ in the month of December 2017 and OA No.528/2020 was filed before this Tribunal to recover the same.

¶30

3.2 Issuance of demand notice and taking further measure in the securitization proceeding is not disputed. The applicant submitted proposal dated 11.10.2022 for ‘OTS’ which was refused by the defendant on 15.10.2022 which was duly communicated to him. The applicant challenged the same before the Hon’ble High Court which is still pending. Since the physical possession of the secured asset could not be taken, M.C. No.285/2023 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha in which an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take physical possession of the same. The payment received from the Land Acquisition Authority was duly credited in the loan account. There is no illegality in any of the measures in the securitization proceeding. The relevant documents regarding execution of guarantee by the applicant and his brother on 31.12.2014 extending security for the ‘Mobi Loan’ availed by his father and other are furnished along with the additional written

¶31

SA 454/2023

¶32

¶33

statement. All other relevant documents concerning the loan transactions are filed. In absence of any illegality, interference with the securitization proceeding is not tenable and sustainable.

¶34

From the respective case of the applicant and defendants, the following points emerged for adjudication in this case:

¶35

(i) Whether the securitization proceeding initiated by the defendants suffer from any illegality or irregularity to intervene with the same?

¶36

(ii) Whether the applicant is entitled to get any relief in this case?

¶37

FINDINGS:

¶38

Point Nos.(i) & (ii):-

¶39

Both the points being interlinked with each other are taken up together for consideration. In this SA the applicant has admitted about availing of KCC and Overdraft limit of Rs.60 lakhs from the 3^rd defendant bank by creating security interest over 26.30 Ares of property and the building thereon owned by the applicant and his brother Jishar Sainulabdeen. It is also admitted case of the applicant that the ‘Mobi Loan’ of Rs.10 lakhs was availed by him on 09.10.2014 which was secured by execution of hypothecation agreement. His father Sainulabdeen Aboobaker availed another ‘Mobi Loan’ of Rs.38 lakhs from the defendant No.3 by execution of hypothecation agreement dated 31.12.2014. It is claimed that the applicant and his brother did not create any

¶40

SA 454/2023

¶41

¶42

security interest over their property for the ‘Mobi loan’ of their father.

¶43

The defendant bank filed OA No.528/2020 against the applicant and others clubbing 3 loans and also issued a demand notice dated 26.07.2022 under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act claiming outstanding amount of Rs.1,57,22,885.53 towards the outstanding in the KCC OD loan of Rs.60 lakhs and Mobi Loan of Rs.38 lakhs of his father. It is claimed by the applicant that the security interest created in respect of KCC OD facility was not kept as security for the Mobi Loan of his father. Hence the demand notice clubbing all the loans is illegal and the defendant cannot proceed with the securitization measure based upon such defective demand notice. Further it is contended that the demand notice is also illegal due to non-compliance of the statutory requirement as contained under section 13(3) of the SARFAESI Act. It is also claimed by the applicant that the step taken under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the CJM, Alappuzha in MC No.285/2023 is not in accordance with the statutory requirement. Hence the entire proceeding is illegal and defendant cannot take possession of the secured asset based upon illegal order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Hence the SA is filed praying to quash the demand notice as well as the step taken under section 14 of the SARFAESI

¶44

SA 454/2023

¶45

¶46

Act including the order passed by the CJM Alappuzha in MC No.285.2023. From all these contentions in the SA, the applicant has raised mainly the following points:-

¶47

i. The applicant and his brother have not executed any document in extending the security interest over 26.30 Ares of property of Kumarapuram village for the Mobi Loan availed by their father. All documents are fabricated and the defendant created forged documents.

¶48

ii. The demand notice issued by the defendant is not as per the statutory requirement.

¶49

iii. The step taken under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the CJM, Alappuzha is not as per the statutory requirement and the Authorised Officer has not complied the mandatory requirement contained under the proviso I to xi of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act which vitiates the entire proceeding.

¶50

The defendants contested the claim stating that there is

¶51

no illegality in any of the proceeding. The applicant and his brother executed agreement of guarantee on 31.12.2014 extending the equitable mortgage of the property created for the KCC OD loan for the Mobi loan of their father. They had also issued Annexures A-21 and A-22 letters, filed by the applicant, in securing the said Mobi Loan by the properties already mortgaged for availing the KCC OD loan. Hence the claim in denying the execution of the said

¶52

SA 454/2023

¶53

¶54

document is totally baseless and the applicant cannot escape from the liability. Hence the SA may be dismissed.

¶55

It appears from the record and documents attached to the counter affidavit filed in IA No.2994 of 2023 that the applicant executed agreement of hypothecation in respect of KCC OD loan and the applicant and his brother executed agreement of guarantee on 13.10.2014 creating security interest of an extent of 26.30 Ares of property which they had confirmed by letter marked document No.3 produced by the defendants. It is also seen from document No.4 agreement of guarantee executed by the applicant and his brother towards the Mobi Loan availed by their father and other relatives and they had also submitted letter, Annexure A-21 dated 01.01.2015 confirming extension mortgage of security for the additional amount availed for the loan of their father and other family members.

¶56

By amending the SA the applicant claimed that Mobi Loan availed by their father and others was not secured by the properties already mortgaged by them and the documents produced by the defendants are forged which do not contain their signature. Previously the defendant filed one OA No.528/2020 before issuance of the demand notice. In the said case summons was duly served on the applicant and his brother. But they did not appear in the

¶57

SA 454/2023

¶58

¶59

said case. All the documents produced in this SA were already produced in the said OA with the specific averment that the security interest created by the applicant over 26.30 Ares of land was extended for the Mobi loan availed by the father of the applicant and others. So also in the said case an advocate notice was sent to the applicant and his brother on 21.05.2020 stating about the extension of their mortgage for the loan of their father and others. The applicant has knowledge about creation of security interest in respect of their property for the Mobi Loan of his father. But he did not raise any contention about forged creation of such document after getting such notice nor challenged the same in any forum. After production of the documents in this SA, the applicant amended the pleading and claimed for the first time that the documents are forged documents, which is purely afterthought to create hurdles in the recovery proceeding.

¶60

In the objection or representation filed by the defendants marked Annexure-A5 in paragraph 2 the applicant has also specifically stated that he is also a guarantor for the Mobi Loan of Rs.38 lakhs availed by his father on 31.12.2014. In the said objection the applicant has not raised any dispute about extension of mortgage of his property for the loan of his father, which also

¶61

SA 454/2023

¶62

¶63

establishes that the claim of the applicant in respect of the Mobi loan is a dilatory tactic to escape from the liability.

¶64

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgement dated 09.01.2025 in Civil Appeal No.1876/2016 in the case of Central

¶65

Bank of India & another vs. Prabha Jain & others it is held as follows:

¶66

“18. Further, the SARFAESI Act is enacted essentially to provide a speedy mechanism for recovery of debts by banks and financial institutions. The SARFAESI Act has not been enacted for providing a mechanism for adjudicating upon the validity of documents or to determine questions of title finally. The DRT does not have the jurisdiction to grant a declaration with respect to the mortgage deed or the sale deed as sought by the Plaintiff. The jurisdiction to declare a sale deed or a mortgage deed being illegal is vested with the civil court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”

¶67

In view of this Judgment the scope of adjudication in the securitization proceeding by the DRT is very limited. It cannot determine the disputed questions regarding fraudulent creation of mortgage documents. The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the claim advanced by the applicant in this proceeding disputing the creation or extension of mortgage of his property in respect of the Mobi Loan of his father and others is not sustainable.

¶68

In respect of the claim in Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act the applicant has raised only general objection. No specific illegality

¶69

SA 454/2023

¶70

¶71

in such proceeding is pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant. In the affidavit filed by the Authorised Officer before the CJM, Alappuzha the total outstanding in the loan account is stated as on 12.06.2023 is Rs.1,72,17,212.92. The learned counsel would contend that the amount due on the date of filing of application is not stated which violates the statutory provision. Hence the proceeding is illegal.

¶72

The law is very well settled on the point that the measure under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is purely administrative in nature. This is not a case that no affidavit was filed in compliance of the proviso of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Even there is some omission in filing such affidavit, it cannot be treated as a material defect causing any substantial prejudice to the applicant.

¶73

Further the learned counsel of the defendant has cited a Division Bench Judgment of the Hon’ble Telangana High Court reported in 2019 KHC 3959 in the case of Tulsi Rocks Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad & Others v. Bank of India & Anr., wherein at paragraph 17 it is held as follows:-

¶74

“17. Therefore, wherever this Court finds that the parameters indicated in Clauses (i) to (ix) of the first proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Act are broadly complied with, the Court is bound to invoke the doctrine of ‘substantial compliance’. It must be remembered that Clauses (i) to (ix) of the first proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Act merely provide the form in which the essential averments for an application under Section 14 of the Act are to be made. Therefore, what is important, is the substance and not the form.”

¶75

SA 454/2023

¶76

¶77

In view of this ratio substantial compliance of the statutory requirement is necessary. Any error or omission in the affidavit would not vitiate the entire proceeding. Hence the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant has no force and the same is not acceptable. Regarding the issuance of demand notice, marked Annexure A4 dated 26.07.2022 nothing illegality was found and also the same was not challenged in time after receipt of the same by raising objection under section 13 (3-A) of the SARFAESI act. Hence the claim about the demand notice is also not sustainable.

¶78

Besides the same, the applicant has produced one Annexure-A7 letter dated 11.10.2022 whereby the applicant has admitted about the KCC OD Loan and the Mobi Loan and also filing of the OA 528/2020 before this Forum. In the said letter the applicant expressed his intention to settle the liabilities by ‘One Time Settlement’. The defendant has issued a letter denying the OTS as the proposal is not acceptable. By expressing to settle the demand by OTS by the applicant, it can be said that they have accepted the demand and now they are legally not entitled in disputing the claim.

¶79

Keeping in view of the discussions made above, the applicant has failed to establish any case showing illegality or irregularity in the proceeding initiated by the defendants. In

¶80

SA 454/2023

¶81

¶82

absence of the same the applicant is not entitled to get any relief and hence the points are answered against the applicant.

¶83

Hence it is ordered:-

¶84

ORDER

¶85

In view of the foregoing reasons, this SA, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed with costs. Since the applicant had delayed the securitization proceeding without any valid reason, he is liable to pay cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to the defendants.

¶86

(Dictated to my PA, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 8^th day of December, 2025) .

¶87

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶88

Documents on the part of the applicant

¶89

Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
Annexure-A1	18.07.2022	True copy of the Power of Attorney executed by the applicant in favour of Muhammed Rafi T.
Annexure-A2	04.09.2018	True copy of the representation submitted to the 3^rddefendant.
Annexure-A3		True copy of the OA No.528/2020 filed by the 3^rddefendant before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam.
Annexure-A4	26.07.2022	True copy of the demand notice issued by the 1^stdefendant.
Annexure-A5	22.09.2022	True copy of the representation/ objection submitted by the applicant.
Annexure-A6	07.10.2022	True copy of the reply issued by the 1^stdefendant.
Annexure-A7	11.10.2022	True copy of the representation submitted by the applicant.
Annexure-A8	15.10.2022	True copy of the reply issued by the 3^rddefendant.
Annexure-A9	24.12.2022	True copy of representation submitted by the applicant.
Annexure-A10	24.12.2022	True copy of representation submitted by the guarantor Sri.Jishar Sainulabdeen.
Annexure-A11	30.12.2022	True copy of representation submitted by the applicant to the 3^rdrespondent bank.
Annexure-A12	22.02.2023	True copy of the Judgment in Writ Petition (C) No.6042/2023 of the Hon’ble High Court.
Annexure-A13	18.05.2023	True copy of the proceedings of the Special Deputy Collector & Competent Authority L.A. (NH) Alappuzha.
Annexure-A14	19.05.2023	True copy of the proceedings of the Special Deputy Collector & Competent Authority L.A. (NH) Alappuzha.

¶90

Annexure-A15	07.08.2023	True copy of the Notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner in MC
		No.285/2023 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha.
Annexure-A16		True copy of the MC No.285/2023
		filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha.
Annexure-A17		True copy of the affidavit in MC No.285/2023 filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha.
Annexure-A18	22.06.2018	True copy of the Agreement to revive the KCC OD Limit.
Annexure-A19	31.12.2014	True copy of the sanction letter in respect of Mobi Loan of Rs.38,00,000/-
Annexure-A20	31.12.2014	True copy of the Mobi Loan (Vehicle Loan) cum Hypothecation Agreement.
Annexure-A21	01.01.2015	True copy of the Letter of confirmation alleged to be executed by the applicant.
Annexure-A22	01.01.2015	True copy of the Letter of confirmation alleged to be executed by the applicant’s brother Jishar Sainulabdeen.
Doc Annexure-B1	uments on th	e part of the defendants True copy of the CERSAI Report.
Annexure-B2		True copy of the Section 14 petition and affidavit in MC No.285 of 2023 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha.
Annexure-B3	01.01.2015	True copy of the Confirmation Letter.

¶91

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶92

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶93

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶94

Dated the 8^th December, 2025

SA No.454/2023

Between

…Applicant

And

The Authorised Officer, The South Indian Bank Ltd., Regional Office, 2^nd Floor, TMJ Complex, Ramanchira, Thiruvalla – 689 107 & 2 Ors.

¶101

…Defendants

¶102

F I N A L O R D E R

¶103

05.12.2025 SA 454/2023

¶104

Advocate Zakkir Hussain learned counsel for the applicant and Advocate Arya Satheesh learned counsel for the defendant are present. Heard arguments from both sides on some limited points. List the case for Judgment on 08.12.2025.

¶105

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶106

08.12.2025 SA 454/2023

¶107

………………………..In view of the foregoing reasons, this SA, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed with costs. Since the applicant had delayed the securitization proceeding without any valid reason, he is liable to pay cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to the defendants (Vide separate final order).

¶108

PRESIDING OFFICER

Jithin Jameel v. South Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jithin Jameel v. South Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of Baroda versus Multi Tech Engineers and Consultants

Canara Bank versus Stich Poly Threads Private Ltd.

Indian Bank versus Vinay Aggarwal

Ms Thakur Bricks Industries versus Canara Bank

State Bank of India versus Mr. Narendra S/O. Vashishtha

Reji a S versus Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank Ltd.