Dismissed

Parthas Textiles v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited

DRT25 Nov 2025SA/519/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Securitization Application filed by borrowers challenging enforcement measures taken by an Asset Reconstruction Company under SARFAESI Act. The Debt Recovery Tribunal rejected the appeal, holding the assignment valid, Section 14 invocation permissible without prior Section 13(4) notice per Supreme Court precedents, and MSME benefits waived for belated claim.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application stood dismissed with no order as to costs.

Parthas Textiles versus Asset Reconstruction Company… — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 25^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶4

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

¶5

S.A No. 519 of 2022

¶6

Between

¶7

M/s. PARTHAS Textiles, PB No.1774, M.G. Road, Kochi – 682 016, Represented by its Managing Partner Praveen Raj Rajendran.

¶8

Praveen Raj Rajendran, S/o. K. Rajendran, PARTHAS House, M.G. Road, Ernakulam – 682 016.

¶9

--- Applicants

¶10

And

¶11

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., (ARCIL), The Ruby, 10^th Floor, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai – 400 028 (acting in its capacity as Trustee of the Arcil-SBP-008-III-Trust), Represented herein by its Authorized Officer Srinivasa Yekabote.

¶12

--- Defendant

¶13

SA No.519 of 2022

¶14

This Securitization Application coming on 21.08.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mr. Jayesh B. Dolia, Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicants and Mr. Sunil Shankar, Counsel appearing 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:

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This Securitisation Application was filed on 26.10.2022 seeking to set aside all further proceedings in pursuance to Annexure-A4 application and to declare that the proceedings initiated by the defendant under the SARFAESI Act in respect of the secured assets are void abinitio and to stay all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A5 notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner and to direct the defendants to pay the cost of the proceedings.

¶17

The 1^st applicant Firm availed various credit facilities from the South Indian Bank Limited which is the original secured creditor upon hypothecation of entire current assets of the first applicant firm including stocks of raw materials, packing materials etc. The credit facilities has been collaterally secured upon creation of equitable mortgage over the three items of immovable properties as referred to in Annexure A1 demand notice dated 01.06.2021.

¶18

Though the applicants have admitted in the SA that there were some defaults in repayment of the loan dues, it is averred in the SA that loan accounts were classified as NPA on 12.1.2021 without following the RBI guidelines. The applicants have not specifically pointed out in the SA as to how the classification of its loan accounts as NPA is against RBI guidelines. In Annexure A1 demand notice it is clearly stated that the borrowers committed defaults in repayment of the financial assistance, loan accounts were classified as NPA. Hence, it is evident that due to the default in repayment of the outstanding loan due, the loan account of the applicants came to be classified as NPA.

¶19

The applicants have admitted the receipt of Annexure A1 demand notice dated 01.06.2021. The applicants sent objection dated 09.08.2021 Annexure A2 to the South Indian Bank Limited, which is the original secured creditor. The said Bank sent reply letter dated 16.08.2021, Annexure-A3 to the applicants for the above objection.

¶20

It is not in dispute that the original secured creditor vide Assignment Agreement dated 28.09.2021, assigned the debts of the applicant in favour of the defendant Asset Reconstruction Company. The applicant firm itself has produced the copy of the above Assignment Agreement as Annexure A12.

¶21

Page 2 of 16

¶22

SA No.519 of 2022

¶23

The defendant approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court and filed Annexure A4 application and affidavit under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. It appears that matter was made over to Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam for disposal. Order dated 12.02.2025 Annexure A10 came to be passed in M.C. No.604/2022 appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner issued Annexure A11 notice dated 04.04.2025 to the applicants and other guarantors informing that he would execute the possession process on or after 14 days from the date of receipt of the notice.

¶24

Pursuant to the order passed in M.C. No.604/2022, the Advocate Commissioner took physical possession of item No.1 and 2 of the properties. According to the defendant, possession notice in respect of item No.1 of the properties and the possession notice in respect of item No.2 of the properties were issued.

¶25

The applicants having aggrieved against the aforesaid measures, have filed this SA seeking for the reliefs sought for supra.

¶26

The counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that Annexure A12 assignment agreement was registered in SRO, Andheri, Mumbai and that no other properties covered under Annexure-A12 falls under the jurisdiction of SRO, Andheri, Mumbai and that Annexure-A12 is only an agreement and not the concluded deed and that total purchase consideration of Rs.343 Crores was not paid and that the defendant has not filed any proof to show that purchase consideration was received by the South Indian Bank Ltd. and that the contention of the defendant with regard to payment of the purchase consideration is not supported by any document and that hence, Annexure A12 is not legally sustainable. In support of his above submissions, he cited the judgment of the Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai delivered in Kothari Industrial Corporation Vs. Kottak Mahindra Bank Ltd., and Another (II(2007) BC 26).

¶27

It is submitted further by the counsel for the applicants that Annexure A12 assignment Agreement was not filed along with the petition in M.C. No.604/2022 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and that hence, the defendant had no locus standi to file the petition under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and that therefore, order passed in M.C. No.604/2022 is not legally sustainable.

¶28

The further contention of the counsel for the applicants is that the South Indian Bank Ltd. without considering the restructuring viability as per the MSME and RBI Circular classified the loan account of the applicant as Non-Performing Asset and that the Hon’ble

¶29

Page 3 of 16

¶30

SA No.519 of 2022

¶31

Supreme Court has held in M/s.Pro Kints Vs. The Board of Directors of Canara Bank that Instructions/Directions issued by the Central Government under Section 9 of the MSMED Act and by the RBI under Section 21 and Section 35 (a) have statutory force and are binding called the Banking Companies. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras has held in A.K.Karthikeyan Vs. the Authorised Officer, Canara Bank and another (WP(MD) No.23328/2024) that the contention of the respondent bank that when the Section 13 (2) notice was issued, the petitioner did not bring it to the knowledge that the petitioner is MSME and entitled to the benefits of notification dated 25.09.2015, cannot be accepted since at the time of processing the loan document itself, it would have declared the unit comes under MSMED.

¶32

It is submitted further by the counsel for the applicants that the defendant invoked the provisions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act without issuing possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and others ((2010) 8 SCC 10 ) and Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others ( (2011) 2 SCC 782) that measures under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act has to follow after Section 13(4) proceedings. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Noble Kumar and Others ( (2013) 9 SCC 620 ) that Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act can be invoked even without initiating proceedings under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act. But the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in C.S.Roshan Narayanan Vs. The Authorised Officer, Central Bank of India and Another ( (2017) 0 AIR (KER) 192 ) , after analysing all the above judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph (13) that Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Noble Kumar’ case is “ per incurium ”, since the said decision does not refer to the earlier decisions of concurrent Benches delivered in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and others ((2010) 8 SCC 10 ) and Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others ( (2011) 2 SCC 782).

¶33

It is submitted further by the counsel for the applicants that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Rajiv Subramanian Vs. Pandyas ( (2014) (2) CTC 323) that Rule 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules has to be followed by banks in its strict sense and that the auction sale held in violation of the mandatory provisions is liable to be set aside. Since the defendant has not properly and legally stepped into the shoes of the South Indian Bank Ltd., the defendant does not have any locus standi to proceed further under the SARFAESI Act 2002 on behalf of the South Indian bank Ltd. and that hence the action initiated by the defendant is not legally valid and that only the south Indian Bank Ltd. has locus standi to proceed against

¶34

Page 4 of 16

¶35

SA No.519 of 2022

¶36

the applicants and that the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam in MC No.604/2022 is illegal and non est in the eye of law and that therefore, SA may be allowed as prayed for.

¶37

The counsel appearing for the defendant submitted that the debt was assigned as per Assignment Agreement dated 28.09.2021, Annexure A12 to the defendant by the South Indian Bank Ltd., which is the assignor, assigning all the rights, title and interest which the assignor is entitled to. The assignee shall have the right to enforce such security interest and exercise all the rights of the assignor in relation to such security interest.

¶38

It is submitted further by the counsel for the defendant that purchase consideration of Rs.343.27 Crores was paid by the defendant to the assignor and that the factum of above payment is admitted by the parties to the Assignment Agreement. In the written statement filed by the South Indian Bank Ltd. in SA No.75/2024, the receipt of purchase consideration is admitted. The contention of the applicants that purchase consideration was not paid stands nullified in view of the statement on record by both the parties to the assignment agreement that purchase consideration was paid and received.

¶39

It is submitted further by the counsel for the defendant that the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has held in Abdul Azezi Vs. The Authorised Officer, Phoenix Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. and others ( (2024) (2) KHC 157) as follows:- “it is therefore evident that what is transferred by a bank/financial institution to an Asset Reconstruction Company is only a transfer of economic right interest and there is no conveyance of property of proprietary right. The transfer of legal ownership of the loan is limited to the extent of economic interest transferred.

¶40

It is submitted further by the counsel for the defendant that the applicants have not claimed the benefit of MSME notification dated 29.5.2015 prior to classification of the loan account as NonPerforming Asset and that he has not claimed the same in the SA also and that this issue has been raised by the applicants only at the time of oral argument of his counsel. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in M/s.Pro Kints Vs. The Board of Directors of Canara Bank and Shri Sree Swamy Syamaraj Construction and Finance Solution and another Vs. The Board of Directors of NKGSB Co-operative Bank Ltd. and others ( (2025) INSC 908, WP(Civil) No. 684/2025 dated 28.7.2025) that in the absence of claiming of MSME benefit in its Section 13(A) reply, the borrower cannot belatedly claim the benefit of MSME notification dated 25.9.2015. The above view has been followed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in * M/s. SARK Spice

¶41

Page 5 of 16

¶42

SA No.519 of 2022

¶43

_Products Pvt.Ltd. V/s. Reserve Bank of India and others, 2025 KER 55399 (W.P (C) No. 42050 of 2024 and connected matters dated 28.07.2025). P.K.Krishnakumar (2024 SCC OnLine (Ker 6888). M.D.Esthappan v. Reserve Bank of India (2025 SCC OnLine Ker 4193)._**

¶44

It is submitted further by the counsel for the defendant that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Noble Kumar and Others ( (2013) 9 SCC 620) that Section 14 can be invoked even without initiating proceedings under Section 13(4). The submission of the applicants in the written argument note that the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has held that Noble Kumar’s case is per in curium is not correct. In fact, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has reconciled Noble Kumar’s case with earlier Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and held that physical dispossession is not necessary for the aggrieved party to challenge the Section 14 measures. There is no observation by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the above cited Judgment that Section 14 proceedings cannot be instituted without issuing possession notice. This SA has been filed to protract and delay the recovery process. Therefore, the SA is liable to be dismissed with costs.

¶45

Annexure-A12 was executed on 28.09.2021 between the defendant Company and the South Indian Bank Ltd which is the lender/assignor transferring the debt liability of the 1^st applicant Firm to the defendant Company. What was transferred by way of Annexure A12 is economic right/interest by the assignor to the defendant, as rightly submitted by the counsel for the defendant. It cannot be disputed that Annexure A12 is not a conveyance deed for transferring the right or title over the secured asset in favour of the defendant. The right to enforce the payment of the outstanding due by the borrower which is the 1^st applicant Firm had to be transferred from the assignor to the defendant by virtue of execution of Annexure A12 Assignment Agreement. In Abdul Azezi Vs. The Authorised Officer, Phoenix Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. and others ( (2024) (2) KHC 157) relied on by the counsel for the defendant, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has categorically held as follows:-

¶46

“it is therefore evident that what is transferred by a bank/financial institution to an Asset Reconstruction Company is only a transfer of economic right interest and there is no conveyance of property of proprietary right. The transfer of legal ownership of the loan is limited to the extent of economic interest transferred”.

¶47

Therefore, this Tribunal does not find any force in the submission of the counsel for the applicant that since Annexure A12 Assignment Agreement was registered in SRO, Andheri, Mumbai and no other

¶48

Page 6 of 16

¶49

SA No.519 of 2022

¶50

properties covered under Annexure A12 falls under the jurisdiction of SRO, Andheri, Mumbai is invalid.

¶51

It is not the case of the applicants that there was a dispute between the defendant and the assignor with regard to non-payment of the purchase consideration. When both parties have categorically admitted that entire purchase consideration of Rs.343.27 was paid by the defendant to the assignor, no documentary proof is required to be produced in this regard.

¶52

In Kothari Industrial Corporation Vs. Kottak Mahindra Bank Ltd., and Another (II (2007) BC 26) relied on by the counsel for the applicants, the Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai has held in paragraph (6) of its Judgment held as follows:-

¶53

“When the deed is questioned, it is the duty of the respondent to establish that it is a valid document and it was done as per Section 5 of the SARFAESI Act. If the assignment is not valid, Kottak Mahindra Bank is not entitled to prosecute or act on behalf of the ICICI Bank Ltd.” On perusal of Annexure A12 Assignment Agreement shows that it was executed between the defendant and the South Indian Bank Ltd which is the assignor for assignment of debt in favour of the defendant subject to various terms and conditions including the payment of entire sale consideration by the defendant to the assignor and that it was registered in the SRO, Andheri, Mumbai. Hence, the submission of the counsel for the applicants is that Annexure A12 is not legally sustainable does not hold good.

¶54

All the rights of the assignor with regard to initiation of measures under the SARFAESI Act under the Rules made there under to recover the outstanding loan due stood transferred to the defendant by virtue of execution of Annexure A12 Assignment Agreement. Hence, Annexure A12 is deemed to have conferred all the rights of the assignor upon the defendant. In Annexure A4 application and affidavit filed in M.C. No.604/2022 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, the execution of Annexure A12 Assignment Agreement and transfer and release all financial assistance in favour of the defendant is clearly averred. The mere omission to produce the copy of Annexure A12 Assignment Agreement along with the above petition will not render the petition invalid. Therefore, the contention of the applicants that the defendant has no locus standi to file petition and affidavit in M.C. No.604/2022 and that order passed in M.C. No.604/2022 is not legally sustainable is liable to be rejected.

¶55

There is no specific plea or averment in the SA with regard to availment of the benefit of MSME by the applicants by virtue of the notification dated 25.09.2015 by the Central Government under

¶56

Page 7 of 16

¶57

SA No.519 of 2022

¶58

Section 9 of the MSMED Act. Though the applicants received Annexure A1 demand notice, they did not send any representation in this regard stating that they were entitled to the aforesaid benefit. The above plea has been raised only during advancement of argument by the counsel for the applicants. On the aforesaid ground alone, the plea raised by the applicants is unsustainable.

¶59

Be that as it may, the applicants have not produced any material before this Tribunal to show that the unit owned by the applicants is covered under the MSMED Act. It is also not the contention of the applicants that they informed the South Indian Bank Ltd that their unit came under MSME. In A.K.Karthikeyan Vs. the Authorised Officer, Canara Bank and another (WP(MD) No.23328/2024) cited by the counsel for the applicants, the Hon’ble High Court has held that the contention of the respondent bank that when the Section 13 (2) notice was issued, the petitioner did not bring it to the knowledge that the petitioner is MSME and entitled to the benefits of notification dated 25.09.2015, cannot be accepted since at the time of processing the loan document itself, it would have declared the unit comes under MSMED. In the above case, the borrower is the proprietor of M/s.KKKM Engineering Industries, MSME Enterprises having UDYOG Adhar No.TN 22-0016206. At the time of availment of credit facility, the respondent Bank was aware of the factum that the above said industry fell under the category of MSME unit. Therefore, the above observation was made by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala that at the time of processing the loan document itself, the bank would have declared that unit came under MSME. Hence, the Tribunal considers that the above judgment relied on by the counsel for the applicants has not application to the present case at hand.

¶60

Both sides’ counsels have cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in M/s.Pro Kints Vs. The Board of Directors of Canara Bank. It has been held that Instructions/ Directions issued by the Central Government under Section 9 of the MSMED Act and by the RBI under Section 21 and Section 35 (a) have statutory force and are binding the Banking Companies. However, it has also been held in the above judgment as follows:-

¶61

“ Though while stressing that the terms of the frame work need to be followed by the lending banks/secured creditors before the account of an MSME is classified as NonPerforming Asset, this decision also lays stress on the obligation of the MSMEs by holding that ‘ it would be equally incumbent on the part of the MSMEs concerned to be vigilant enough to follow the process laid down under the said Framework, and bring to the notice of the Banks concerned, by producing the authenticated and verifiable documents/material to show its eligibility to get the benefit

¶62

Page 8 of 16

¶63

SA No.519 of 2022

¶64

of the said Framework”. It was cautioned that “if such an Enterprise allowed the entire process for enforcement of security interest under the SARFAESI Act to be over, or it having challenged such action of the bank/creditor concerned in the court of law/tribunal and having failed, such an Enterprise could not be permitted to misuse the process of law for thwarting the actions taken under the SARFAESI Act by raising the plea of being an MSME at a belated stage”.

¶65

26 . The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in M/s. SARK Spice Products Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Reserve Bank of India and others, 2025 KER 55399 (W.P (C) No.42050 of 2024 and connected matters dated 28.07.2025), after referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in M/s.Pro Kints Vs. The Board of Directors of Canara Bank, has held in paragraph 40 of its judgment that it is the obligation of the borrower to disclose its MSME status with authenticated and veritable documents before the loan account is classified as Non-Performing Asset and that failure to do so, this entitles the borrower from invoking the statutory frame work at a belated stage to obstruct the recovery under the SARFAESI Act.

¶66

In P.K.Krishnakumar (2024) SCC OnLine (Ker 6888) relied on by the counsel for the defendant, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala by referring the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in M/s.Pro Kints Vs. The Board of Directors of Canara Bank , has held as follows:-

¶67

“ The Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, has laid down the position of law that if , at the stage of classification of the loan account, the borrower does not bring to the notice of the Bank that it is an MSME and allow the entire process to go through, then it will be precluded from raising it at the belated stage. This dicta is very clear and is binding”.

¶68

In the light of the dictum and observations laid in the afore cited judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala (cited by the counsel for the defendant), it is manifestly clear that the applicants are disentitled to claim the benefit of MSME unit after classification of his loan account as Non-Performing Asset.

¶69

The other contention raised by the applicants in the SA is that invoking the measures under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act without issuance of possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act is not legally sustainable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Noble Kumar and Others ( (2013) 9

¶70

Page 9 of 16

¶71

SA No.519 of 2022

¶72

SCC 620 ) that Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act can be invoked even without initiating proceedings under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The counsel appearing for the applicants drew the attention of this Tribunal to the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in C.S.Roshan Narayanan Vs. The Authorised Officer, Central Bank of India and Another ( (2017) AIR (KER) 192 ) , submitting that the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has held that the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Noble Kumar’s case is “ per in curium ”, since the above judgment does not refer to the earlier judgments of concurrent Benches delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and others ((2010) 8 SCC 10 ) and Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others ( (2011) 2 SCC 782).

¶73

On perusal of the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala delivered in C.S.Roshan Narayanan Vs. The Authorised Officer, Central Bank of India and Another [(2017) AIR (KER) 192] , it is discernible that the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has not held that the judgment rendered in Noble Kumar’s case is per in curium. What has been observed in the above judgment is that physical dispossession is not necessary for the aggrieved party to challenge the measures initiated under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. There is no observation in the above judgment that measures under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be initiated without issuance of the possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, this Tribunal does not find any merit in the contention of the applicants that the measures initiated by the 1^st defendant under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, without issuance of the possession notice under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is not valid.

¶74

Apart from the aforesaid contentions raised by the applicants, there are no other contentions or averments either in the SA or in the written argument notes submitted on behalf of the applicants with regard to non compliance of the statutory requirements contemplated under clauses (i) to (ix) to the proviso of Section 14 (1) of the SAFRAESI Act, 2002 in respect of filing of application and affidavit in MC No.604/2022 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. There is also no specific challenge with regard to the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam in MCNo.604/2022 appointing Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured assets. This Tribunal also does not find any infirmity or irregularity in respect of filing of Annexure A4 application and affidavit by the defendant in MC No.604/2022 and also in Annexure-A10 order dated 12.02.2025 passed in MC No.604/2022 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam, appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured assets.

¶75

Page 10 of 16

¶76

SA No.519 of 2022

¶77

In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, this Tribunal holds that the applicants are not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the SA.

¶78

Resultantly, S.A No.519 of 2022 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶79

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25^th day of November, 2025.

¶80

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 11 of 16

SA No.519 of 2022

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTIES

¶85

Item No.1

¶86

State	: Kerala
District	: Ernakulam
Sub District	: Ernakulam
Taluk	: Kanayannur
Village	: Ernakulam
Sy. No.	: 701/1
Extent (ares)	: 1.79 (4.470 cents)

¶87

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY

¶88

All that part and parcel of land admeasuring 1.79 ares an extent of 4.470 cents (by possession 4.42 cents) along with building with approximate area 1900 sq. ft. in Cochin Corporation and all improvements therein situated in Sy. No.701/1 of Ernakulam village kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District, covered under Sale Deed No.2420/2008 dated 02.06.2008 of Ernakulam Sub Registry.

¶89

Boundaries

¶90

North : Property in Sy. No.701/1 part East : Property in Sy. No.701/1 part West : Public Road South : Property in Sy. No.701/6

Page 12 of 16

SA No.519 of 2022

Item No.2

State : Kerala District : Ernakulam Sub District : Ernakulam Taluk : Kanayannur Village : Ernakulam Sy. Nos. : 735/5 and 737/12 Extent (ares) : 7.96 (19.669 cents)

¶95

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY

¶96

All that part and parcel of land admeasuring 7.96 ares an extent of (19.669 cents) along with commercial building (Textile Showroom) with approximate area 27753 sq. ft. in Cochin Corporation and all improvements therein situated in Sy. No.735/5 and 737/12 of Ernakulam Village Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District, covered under Sale Deed No.2597/1991 dated 29.07.1991, Gift Deed Nos.1170/1990 dated 28.03.1990, 1171/1990 dated 28.03.1990 and Sale Deed No.1406/1969 dated 14.07.1969, all registered before Ernakulam Sub Registry.

¶97

Boundaries

¶98

North : Property of Dena Bank East : M.G. Road West : Property of Sivakumar South : Road

Page 13 of 16

SA No.519 of 2022

Item No.3

State	: Kerala
District	: Ernakulam
Sub District	: Ernakulam
Taluk	: Kanayannur
Village	: Ernakulam
Sy. Nos.	: 726/6 and 726/9
Extent (ares)	: 8.86 (21.90 cents)

¶103

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY

¶104

All that part and parcel of land admeasuring 8.86 ares an extent of (21.90 cents) with residential building with approximate area 6500 sq. ft. in Cochin Corporation and all improvements therein situated in Sy. No.726/6 and 726/9 of Ernakulam Village Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District, along with right of way through 90 sq. mtrs of property in Sy. No.726/6 and covered under Release Deed No.634/1998 dated 25.02.1988 and Sale Deed No.588/1988 dated 23.02.198, all registered before Ernakulam Sub Registry.

¶105

Boundaries

¶106

North : Property in Sy. No.726/8 and Road East : Property in Sy. No.726/9 West : Property in Sy. No.726/6 South : Property in Sy. No.727

(Su. WILLYAHM)

PRESIDING OFFICER

Page 14 of 16

SA No.519 of 2022

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

¶112

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	01.06.2021	True copy of demand notice issued to the applicants by the South Indian Bank Ltd.	Annexure-A1
2.	09.08.2021	True copy of the objection issued by the applicants to Annexure-A1 demand notice	Annexure-A2
3.	16.08.2021	True copy of the reply issued to the 1^st applicant by theBank.	Annexure-A3
4.	---	True copy of application in MC No.604 of 2022 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam.	Annexure-A4
5.	16.09.2022	True copy of the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner along with postal receipt.	Annexure-A5
6.	28.09.2022	True copy of the judgment in W.P (C) No.30981/2022 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.	Annexure-A6
7.	---	Certified copy of the total dues summary produced in Annexure-A4 by the defendant.	Annexure-A7
8.	04.04.2021	True copy of the death certificate of Dr.K.L. Parthasarathy.	Annexure-A8
9.	17.01.2025	True copy of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.29292/24 and 29293/24.	Annexure-A9
10.	12.02.2025	True copy of the order of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam in CMP No.741/2025in MCNo.604/2022.	Annexure-A10
11.	04.04.2025	True copy of the notice issued by the newly appointed Advocate Commissioner.	Annexure-A11
12.	28.09.2021	True copy of the assignment agreement enteredinto betweenthe defendants.	Annexure-A12

¶113

Page 15 of 16

¶114

SA No.519 of 2022

¶115

List of documents filed by the defendant along with the written statement

¶116

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	---	True copy of the CERSAI registration with security ID No.400017423347, 400017424519,400017549069.	Annexure-B1
2.	---	True copies of the acknowledgment cards/returned postal covers of the demand notice.	Annexure-B2
3.	15.06.2023	True copy of the judgment in OP (DRT) No.441 of 2022 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.	Annexure-B3
4.	04.01.2024	True copy of the judgment in Writ Appeal No.327 of 2021 of the Hon'ble HighCourt of Kerala.	Annexure-B4

¶117

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶118

Mj/

¶119

Page 16 of 16

Parthas Textiles v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parthas Textiles v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited

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

Basil Co. versus Kerala Gramin Bank

Uco Bank versus Sh. Bachchan Kumar Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Bhagwant Singh

Indu Kumari Pandey versus Union Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus M/S K. K. Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Mr. Praveen