Dismissed

Sini Devaraj v. State Bank of India

DRT31 Oct 2025SA/493/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's Securitization Application challenging the bank's sale notice and possession proceedings. Upholding the bank's compliance with the SARFAESI Act, the Court held that service by registered post returning 'Add. Left' constitutes due service per Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000 paid by the applicant.

Sini Devaraj versus State Bank of India — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Dated this the 31^st day of October, 2025

¶4

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.493/2022

¶5

Between

¶6

Sini Devaraj, Thaivalappil House, Porithissery P.O., Irinjalakkuda, Thrissur - 680 121. …Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Asset Recovery Branch, 7^th Floor, Vankarath Towers, Palarivattom Bypass Junction, Ernakulam – 682 024. ...Defendant

¶9

This Securitization Application having been heard on 29.10.2025 in the presence of Advocate Sri.Sasi N. for the applicant

¶10

and Advocates M/s.Jithesh Menon, Indu K. and Mahesh Kumar P.G. for the defendant and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:

¶11

F I N A L O R D E R

¶12

Challenging the securitization proceedings initiated by the defendant under the provisions of the Securitization and

¶13

SA 493/2022

¶14

¶15

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 seeking relief to set aside the sale notice dated 12.08.2022 issued by the defendant. By way of amendment, the applicant challenged the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner in CMP No.9/2020.

¶16

Brief facts of the case :

¶17

2.1 In the SA the applicant claims that she being the proprietrix of M/s.Sangameswara Products had availed three loans, totaling to Rs.23 lakhs from the defendant bank by mortgaging the subject matter property. Due to the flood occurred in 2018 and the subsequent covid-19 pandemic, her business was affected. Without considering the genuine attempt of the applicant to wipe off the debt, the defendant classified the loans as NPA. On 12.08.2022, the defendant issued sale notice notifying sale of the secured asset to be held on 27.09.2022.

¶18

2.2 It is contended by the applicant that the proceeding initiated by the defendant is not in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder. No demand notice was served on the applicant. The possession notice was not

¶19

SA 493/2022

¶20

¶21

published or affixed on the secured asset as stipulated under the statute and hence the same is liable to be set aside. Annexure-A1 sale notice was also not affixed and published the same in newspapers.

¶22

2.3 In the amended SA, it is claimed that the defendant bank approached the CJM, Thrissur by filing CMP No.9/2020 for taking possession of the property. The CJM passed an order marked Annexure-A2 appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset who issued notice marked Annexure-A4 on 08.11.2022 stating that possession of the property will be taken within 15 days which is in violation of the order dated 25.10.2022 of the Tribunal as there is no clear 15 days’ notice. Hence the applicant prayed to set aside all the steps taken by the defendant under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

¶23

3.1 The defendant filed written statement denying the averments in the SA. It is claimed that the entire proceedings initiated by the defendant are strictly in consonance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules. The applicant availed a medium term loan of Rs.7.60 lakhs for building construction, another medium term loan of Rs.10.45 lakhs for machinery procurement and a cash credit limit of Rs.5.51 lakhs, totaling to

¶24

SA 493/2022

¶25

¶26

Rs.23.56 lakhs on 29.03.2013. The applicant created security interest over the subject matter property by deposit of title deed with the bank towards security for the loans. Due to default in repayment, the loans were classified as NPA on 29.06.2017 and initiated proceeding under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act by issuing demand notice under S.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act vide Annexure-R1(a) which was served on the firm M/s.Sangameswara Products. As the demand notice issued to the applicant was returned unserved with the postal endorsement ‘addressee left’, the same was affixed on the secured asset, besides publishing the notice in two daily newspapers. Copies of the publications are produced along with the written statement and marked as Annexure-R1(c) and Annexure-R1(d).

¶27

3.2 The applicant failed to repay the dues as demanded and hence possession notice was issued on 02.03.2019 which was also returned unserved vide Annexure-R1(f). The possession notice was also published in newspapers marked as Annexure-R1(g) and Annexure-R1(h) and affixed the same on the secured asset. Thereafter Annexure-A1 sale notice was issued which was served on the applicant. The sale notice was published in two leading newspapers and the same was affixed on the conspicuous place of

¶28

SA 493/2022

¶29

¶30

the property and all the documents are produced in this case. As the defendant find difficulty in taking possession of the secured asset, they moved the CJM, Thrissur by filing an application under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act. The CJM appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. The applicant sought seven days’ time for vacating the building and hence the Advocate Commissioner left the premises without taking possession. Thereafter, the commissioner issued Annexure-A4 notice in compliance with the order passed by the Tribunal which is challenged by the applicant by way of amendment. All the statutory measures are duly followed and there is no illegality or irregularity in any of the securitisation measures initiated by the defendant. Hence the SA, being devoid of any merit, may be dismissed.

¶31

From the respective case of the applicant and the

¶32

defendant, the following points are emerged for adjudication in this case:

¶33

(i) Whether the securitization proceedings initiated by the defendant under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act suffer from any illegality to interdict with the same?

¶34

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

SA 493/2022

FINDINGS:

Point Nos.(i) and (ii):

¶39

Admittedly, the applicant availed three loans from the defendant bank and security interest was created over 10 cents of land along with the buildings therein to secure the loans. It is also admitted that the loans could not be repaid promptly. In such premises, the defendant initiated securitization proceeding and issued demand notice to the applicant as well as her proprietary concern. The demand notice issued to the applicant by registered post acknowledgement due was returned with the postal endorsement ‘Add. Left. Rtd. to sender’; whereas, the demand notice issued to her proprietary concern was received on 21.07.2017 which is evident from the acknowledgement card marked as Annexure-R1(b). Since the demand notice was returned unserved, the same was published in Mathrubhumi and The New Indian Express dailies dated 15.12.2018.

¶40

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment dated 01.03.2017 in Criminal Appeal No.455/2006 in the case of N.Paraeswaran Unni vs. G.Kannan & another at paragraph 15 held as follows:-

¶41

“15. This Court in catena of cases has held that when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with postal endorsement

¶42

SA 493/2022

¶43

¶44

“refused” or “not available in the house” or “house locked” or “shop closed” or “addressee not in station”, due service has to be presumed.”

¶45

In view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it can be presumed that there is due service of demand notice on the applicant.

¶46

Insofar as the contention raised by the applicant against

¶47

the possession notice is concerned, the same was issued by the defendant on 02.03.2019. If the applicant has any grievance against the possession notice, she could have challenged the same within the statutory period of limitation but she has not done so. Hence such contentions cannot be entertained in the instant SA filed on 27.09.2022.

¶48

In the course of argument, learned counsel for the defendant submitted that pursuant to sale notice marked AnnexureA1, sale did not fructify for want of bidders. It is also claimed that physical possession of the secured asset was not taken in pursuance of the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner.

¶49

In the above circumstance, Annexure-A1 sale notice has become infructuous and there is no necessity to adjudicate the same in this proceeding. In view of the interim stay granted by the Tribunal on 21.11.2022 which was extended from time to time due

¶50

SA 493/2022

¶51

¶52

to non-filing of written statement and counter affidavit by the defendant bank, the Advocate Commissioner has not taken physical possession of the secured asset pursuant to Annexure-A4 notice.

¶53

The defendant has produced all the relevant documents showing compliance of the statutory requirements. There is no illegality or irregularity to interdict with the proceeding initiated by the defendant. In the absence of proof of any illegality, the applicant is not entitled to get any relief. Point Nos.(i) and (ii) are answered against the applicant.

¶54

Hence it is ordered:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

In view of the foregoing reasons, this SA, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed with costs. The applicant shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the defendant for causing unnecessary delay in the securitization proceedings.

¶57

(Dictated to my PA, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 31^st day of October, 2025)

¶58

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶59

SA 493/2022

¶60

¶61

Documents on the part of the applicant

¶62

Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
Annexure-A1	12.08.2022	Copy of sale notice issued to the applicant.
Annexure-A2	01.01.2019	Copy of order passed by the CJM, Thrissur in CMP No.9/2020.
Annexure-A3	…	Copy of letter issued to the Advocate Commissioner by the applicant.
Annexure-A4	08.11.2020	Copy of notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner in CMP No.9/2020.

¶63

Documents on the part of the defendant

¶64

Annexure-R1(a)	…	True copy of the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.
Annexure-R1(b)	…	True copy of the acknowledgment cards, evidencing the receipt of Annexure R1(A) notice.
Annexure-R1(c)	15.12.2018	True copy of the paper publication in the Mathrubhumi.
Annexure-R1(d)	15.12.2018	True copy of the paper publication in the New Indian Express.
Annexure-R1(e)	02.03.2019	True copy of the notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.
Annexure-R1(f)		True copy of Postal cover with endorsement.
Annexure-R1(g)	08.03.2019	True copy of the Paper publication in the Mathrubhumi.
Annexure-R1(h)	08.03.2019	True copy of the Paper publication in the Hindu daily.
Annexure-R1(i)	…	True copy of the acknowledgment card.
Annexure-R1(j)	14.08.2022	True copy of the paper publication in the Deshabhimani.

¶65

SA 493/2022

¶66

¶67

Annexure-R1(k) 14.08.2022 True copy of the paper publication in the Hindu. Annexure-R1(l) … True copy of the photographs.

¶68

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶69

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶70

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶71

Dated the 31^st October, 2025

¶72

SA No.493/2022

¶73

Between

¶74

Sini Devaraj, Thaivalappil House, Porithissery P.O., Irinjalakkuda, Thrissur - 680 121. …Applicant

¶75

And

¶76

The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Asset Recovery Branch, 7^th Floor, Vankarath Towers, Palarivattom Bypass Junction, Ernakulam. …Defendant

¶77

F I N A L O R D E R

Sini Devaraj v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sini Devaraj v. State Bank of India

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

State Bank of India versus M/S Bhatia Steel Industries

Canara Bank versus Sh Sukhjeet Singh Chahal

Punjab National Bank versus Gurjit Singh

Mrs Prasanna Kumari versus Bharat Cooperative Bank Mumbai Limited

Bank of Baroda versus Sri.Fakirappa Shivaputrappa Gouddannavar

Canara Bank versus M/S Nisha Apparels Rep by Its Proprietrix Smt Mariya