Dismissed

Shajimol v. State Bank of India

DRT4 Jun 2025SA/507/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed a securitization application challenging a possession notice under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The court held minor procedural defects regarding the outstanding amount statement and seal affixation did not vitiate the proceedings. However, the court directed the defendant to remove the name of an expired party from the record before proceeding further.

What did the court decide?

The application was dismissed but without costs, with a direction to remove the deceased party's name from the record.

Shajimol versus State Bank of India — 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 4^th day of June, 2025

¶4

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.507/2024

¶5

Between

¶6

Shajimol, Shaji House, TC 78/1890, FCI Road, Kochuthope, Vallakadavu P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 008. …Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, SARB, LMS Compound, Vikas Bhavan P.O., Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 033. ….Defendant

¶9

This Securitization Application having been heard on

¶10

05.05.2025 in the presence of Advocates M/s.Rasmi Nair T. & Jithendran S. for the applicant and Advocate Lakshmy S. for the defendant and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:

¶11

SA 507/2024

¶12

¶13

F I N A L O R D E R

¶14

Challenging the securitization proceedings initiated by the defendant 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/borrower has filed this SA under S.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act challenging the securitization measure.

¶15

Brief facts of the case :

¶16

2.1 In this SA the applicant has challenged the securitization measure under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act initiated by the defendant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram and the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner being appointed by the chief judicial magistrate in taking physical possession of the secured asset.

¶17

2.2 The applicant availed loans against property and a Home Loan of Rs.18,47,363/and Rs.6,66,570/respectively by mortgaging the subject matter properties. Due to default committed by him in repaying the loan, the securitization proceeding was initiated. Being unable to take physical possession of the secured asset, the defendant bank filed M.C. No.473/2024 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram

¶18

SA 507/2024

¶19

¶20

under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. In the said proceeding, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed.

¶21

2.3. The applicant challenged the said proceeding mainly on the ground non-compliance of the statutory requirement and also it is contended that the security interest was not duly registered in the CERSAI Portal, which vitiates the proceeding. Hence the applicant has prayed to set aside the entire securitization proceeding.

¶22

The defendant filed written statement denying the averments in the SA and claimed inter alia that, there is no illegality in the securitization proceeding. The security interest was duly registered in the CERSAI Portal and the relevant certificate is filed as Annexure-R1, after issuance of the demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and possession notice under section 14(4) of the SARFAESI Act by following the statutory requirements. The applicant did not take any interest in repaying the outstanding amount. Hence the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, bearing M.C. No.473/2024 to take physical possession of the secured asset. There is no illegality in such

¶23

SA 507/2024

¶24

¶25

proceeding. Hence the SA, being devoid of any merit, may be dismissed.

¶26

From the respective contentions of both sides, the

¶27

following points are emerged for adjudication in this case:

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

FINDINGS:

¶31

Point Nos.(i) & (ii):

¶32

For the sake of convenience, both the points, being interlinked with each other, are taken up together for adjudication. During argument stage, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the aggregate amount as on the date of filing of the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is not stated, which vitiates the proviso of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. So also the Authorised Officer has not affixed any seal over the said application which vitiates the said proceeding. It is also argued that the impugned order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate was passed against a dead person which renders the order as null and void.

¶33

SA 507/2024

¶34

¶35

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant would contend that these grounds are not valid grounds to hold the proceedings as illegal. The Chief Manager, being the Authorised Officer as per the statute has affixed his seal, which cannot be said illegal and hence the SA may be dismissed.

¶36

On careful consideration of submission of both sides the applicant has not challenged the other measures taken by the defendant till filing of application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. In the affidavit the outstanding as on 29.05.2024 is stated and the affidavit was sworn on 04.06.2024. Merely because the amount outstanding as on 04.06.2024, i.e., 5 days after the date mentioned in the affidavit, is not stated, the entire proceeding cannot be said illegal. Nor it caused any substantial prejudice to the applicant.

¶37

It is found that the Chief Manager has sworn the affidavit as per the statute, Rule 2(a) of The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The ‘Authorised Officer’ means an officer not less than a Chief Manager of a public sector bank or equivalent officer. The Chief Manager has sworn affidavit stating specifically that he is the Authorised Officer of the bank. Mere putting the seal of the Chief Manager in the application, the said proceeding cannot be held as invalid. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after referring all the

¶38

SA 507/2024

¶39

¶40

materials and being satisfied passed order in appointing an Advocate Commissioner, which cannot be said illegal in any manner.

¶41

It is seen from the proceeding before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, one Smt. Janova is impleaded as a party to the proceeding, who expired. Her name was not deleted from the record. In such premises, the defendant, before proceeding further in such proceeding, shall take steps to delete her from the record or to substitute the LRs in her place. With the above observation, the points are answered accordingly.

¶42

Hence it is ordered:-

¶43

ORDER

¶44

In view of the foregoing reasons, the SA is dismissed but

¶45

in the circumstances without costs.

¶46

(Dictated to my PA, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 4^th day of June, 2025.

¶47

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶48

SA 507/2024

¶49

¶50

Documents on the part of the applicant

¶51

Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
Annexure-A1	04.06.2024	Certified copy of MC 473/2024.
Annexure-A2	22.06.2024	Certified copy of Order.
Annexure-A3	28.02.2024	Certified copy of Demand Notice.
Annexure-A4	11.07.2024	True copy of Advocate Commissioners notice.

¶52

Documents on the part of the defendant

¶53

Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
Annexure-R1		True copy of the Search Report with Central Registry of Securitization Assets Reconstruction and Security Interest of India.
Annexure-R1(a)	28.02.2024	True copy of the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Annexure- R1(b)	…	True copy of the acknowledgment cards evidencing the service of notice on the applicant, Mr. Barnabas and Michael Francis and Janova.
Annexure- R1(c)	17.05.2024	True copy of the possession notice issued under Section 13(4) of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
Annexure- R1(d)	…	True copy of the Acknowledgment Card evidencing the service of Annexure R1(c) Possession Notice on the applicant, Mr. Michael and Mr.Barnabas.

¶54

SA 507/2024

¶55

¶56

Annexure- R1(e)	…	True Card Anne the and	copy of the evidencing xure R1(c) Pos applicant, Mr. Mr.Barnabas.	Ack the sessi Mic	nowledgment service of on Notice on hael Francis
Annexure- R1(f)	…	True Card Anne the and	copy of the evidencing xure R1(c) Pos applicant, Mr. Mr.Barnabas.	Ack the sessi Mic	nowledgment service of on Notice on hael Francis
Annexure- R1(g)	19.05.2024	True publi Daily	copy of shed in The .	the Ind	publication ian Express
Annexure- R1(h)	19.05.2024	True publi	copy of shed in Kerala	the Kaum	publication udi.
Annexure- R1(i)		True evide poss	copy of t ncing the ession notice.	he af	photographs fixture of

¶57

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶58

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶59

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶60

Dated the 4^th day of June, 2025

¶61

SA No.507/2024

¶62

Between

¶63

Shajimol, Shaji House, TC 78/1890, FCI Road, Kochuthope, Vallakadavu P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 008.

¶64

…Applicant

¶65

And

¶66

The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, SARB, LMS Compound, Vikas Bhavan P.O., Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 033. ….Defendant

¶67

F I N A L O R D E R

Shajimol v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shajimol 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

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/S Shree Balaji Enterprises

Indian Overseas Bank versus Loyal Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. And Three Others

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S Rajaram Dall Mill

Icici Bank Limited versus Jayappa

State Bank of India versus Bijoy Kumar Rai

Tenson v M versus South Indian Bank