Dismissed

Soniya P S v. Idbi Bank

DRT3 Oct 2025SA/526/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's Securitization Application challenging the bank's recovery proceedings. The court held that issuing a possession notice under Section 13(4) is not mandatory when approaching the Magistrate. Furthermore, the applicant failed to produce the affidavit or the order to prove the alleged procedural lapse.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application (S.A No.526 of 2023) is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Soniya P S versus Idbi Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 03^rd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶4

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

¶5

S.A No. 526 of 2023

¶6

Between

¶7

Soniya P.S., D/o. Suresh, Perunilath House, Thripunithura, Ernakulam -680 583.

¶8

--- Applicant

¶9

And

¶10

IDBI Bank Ltd., Rep. by the Authorized Officer, Retail Recovery Department, IDBI Building, Panampilly Nagar, Near Passport Office, Kochi – 682 036.

¶11

--- Defendant

¶12

This Securitization Application coming on 19.08.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Ms. Bhavana representing the counsel for the applicant and Mr. E.K. Remesh Kartha, Counsel for the defendant and the representing Counsel for the applicant having failed to advance the argument and upon hearing argument of learned Counsel for the defendant and upon perusing the material on records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Securitisation Application was filed on 18.09.2023 seeking to call for the entire records leading to the issuance of the notices

¶15

SA No.526 of 2023

¶16

under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act to the applicant and against the secured asset and declare that the steps taken thereon against the applicant as illegal.

¶17

The applicant has admitted the availment of credit facility of Rs.18,00,000/- from the defendant bank upon creation of mortgage over her immovable property admeasuring an extent of 0.81 Ares in Re.Sy.No.31 in Block No.328 together with building comprised in Re.Sy.No.31/4 of Nadama Village, Kanayannoor Taluk, Ernakulam District.

¶18

The applicant has admitted in the SA that due to certain financial stringencies, she could not make payment in time and that there occurred some default. According to the defendant, since the applicant defaulted in repayment of the outstanding loan due, the loan account of the applicant came to be classified as Non-performing Asset on 15.04.2019.

¶19

The applicant has not averred in the SA as to whether Demand notice was issued to her. However, the defendant has averred in the written statement that demand notice was issued on 30.03.2019 and that since no acknowledgment card or un-served cover was received from the postal department, the defendant obtained delivery record of postman showing delivery of the notice to the applicant. The copy of delivery record has been produced as Annexure-D1. A perusal of the same shows that demand notice was served to the applicant.

¶20

Subsequently, Annexure-A1 possession notice dated 04.08.2023 was issued for taking symbolic possession of the secured asset. Thereafter the defendant approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and filed application and affidavit in MC No.347/2022. The matter was made over to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam for disposal. Order came to be passed in MC 347/2022 appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner issued Annexure-D5 notice dated 21.7.2023 to the applicant informing her that he would take possession of the property on 4.8.2023. The applicant having aggrieved against the above measures filed this SA seeking for the reliefs stated supra.

¶21

The applicant has contended in the SA that initiation of proceedings u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act 2002 is erroneous, since the defendant failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the provisions of Sec.13 (2) and 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 and that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam has erred in concluding that there was compliance of the statutory requirements in the affidavit. The applicant has also contended in the SA that the order was passed by the learned

¶22

Page 2 of 5

¶23

SA No.526 of 2023

¶24

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam without satisfying over the contents of the affidavit.

¶25

The counsel appearing for the defendant submitted that the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala passed in W.P (C) No.27630/2023 to pay Rs.5,00,000/- within two weeks from the date of judgment Annexure-A3 and to pay the remaining amount in 15 equally monthly instalments was not complied with by the applicant and that the defendant complied with the requirements for issuing demand notice and possession notice and that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam passed order after having satisfied over the contents of the affidavit and that the security interest has been registered with the Central Registry and that therefore, SA may be dismissed.

¶26

It is now settled law that issuance of possession notice u/s 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 is not mandatory for the secured creditor and the Authorized Officer to approach the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, for taking physical possession of the secured asset.

¶27

The applicant has not produced the copy of the affidavit filed in MC 347/2022 in order to prove her contention that there was no proper compliance of the statutory requirements contemplated under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002. She has also not produced copy of the order passed in MC No.347/2022 in order to prove her contention that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam passed order without satisfying over the contents of the affidavit and the documents filed in support of the affidavit.

¶28

The applicant has failed to establish her case so as to get the reliefs sought for in the SA.

¶29

Resultantly, S.A No.526 of 2023 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3^rd day of October, 2025.

¶31

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 3 of 5

SA No.526 of 2023

S C H E D U L E

Description of the immovable property -

¶37

Property having a total extent of 0.81 Ares in Re. Sy. No.31 in Block No.328 together with building bearing No.24/429A and 0.19 Ares in Re.Sy.No.31/4 of Nadama Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District.

¶38

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶39

Page 4 of 5

¶40

SA No.526 of 2023

¶41

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

¶42

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	04.08.2023	True copy of the possession notice affixed by the respondent bank.	Annexure-1
2.	15.06.2023	True computer print of daily order passed in MC No.347/2022 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs),Ernakulam.	Annexure-2
3.	07.09.2023	True copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in W.P (C) No.27630/2023.	Annexure-3

¶43

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

¶44

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	---	True copy of the delivery record of postman showing delivery of notice to the applicant.	Annexure-D1
2.	12.11.2021	True copy of the possession notice issued to the applicant and published in Indian Express and Mangalam daily on 17.11.2021	Annexure-D2
3.	25.03.2022	True copy of the decree passed by the Additional Sub Court-I Ernakulam in OSNo.180/2020.	Annexure-D3
4.	---	True copy of EP No.498/2022 pending before the Sub Court-I Ernakulam.	Annexure-D4
5.	21.07.2023	True copy of the notice sent by the Advocate Commissioner along with the postal receipt.	Annexure-D5
6.	---	True copy of CERSAI report.	Annexure-D6

¶45

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶46

Mj/

¶47

Page 5 of 5

Soniya P S v. Idbi Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soniya P S v. Idbi Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Nirupma Trehan Pati and Anr.

Uco Bank versus M/S Varun Enterprises

Hdfc Bank versus Ravi Shankar Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Jalaur Singh

Gurdev Kaur versus Punjab National Bank

Mujeeb Rehman v K versus State Bank of India