Dismissed

Biju K Antony v. Catholic Syrian Bank Limited

DRT12 Sept 2025SA/537/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed a securitization application where applicants challenged the validity of a possession notice and court orders. The Tribunal held the Tribunal held the demand notice was valid despite missing the officer's name and found no infirmity in the Section 14(1) proceedings.

What did the court decide?

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

Biju K Antony versus Catholic Syrian Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 12^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶4

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

¶5

S.A No. 537 of 2023

¶6

Between

¶7

Biju K. Antony, Kottaramkunnel House, Mudavoor P.O., Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam District. Pin Code- 686669.

¶8

Mrs. Bismi George, Kottaramkunnel House, Mudavoor P.O., Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam District. Pin Code- 686669.

¶9

--- Applicants

¶10

And

¶11

The authorized Officer, CSB Bank Limited, Assets Recovery Branch, Chittoor Road, Valanjambalam, Ernakulam - 682016.

¶12

CSB Bank Limited, Assets Recovery Branch, Chittoor Road, Valanjambalam, Ernakulam- 682016 represented by its Authorized Officer.

¶13

--- Defendants

¶14

SA No.537 of 2023

¶15

This Securitization Application coming on 18.08.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mr. Judith, representing the Counsel for the Applicants and Ms. Arya Anil Advocate representing the Counsel for the defendants and upon hearing arguments of learned Counsels for both the parties and upon perusing the material on records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This Securitisation Application was filed on 01.09.2023 seeking to declare Annexure-A1 possession notice as void, illegal, and nonest, and to set aside the same and to set aside Annexure A5 order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam (Special Court for MPs/MLAs) in MC No.993/2023 for appointing Advocate Commissioner and to set aside Annexure A6 notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset.

¶18

It is pertinent to mention at the outset that, there are no pleadings either in the SA or in the written statement filed by the defendants with regard to availment of credit facilities by the applicants from the 2^nd defendant bank upon creation of security interest over the SA subject matter of the property and the default in repayment of the outstanding loan due etc. Even the demand notice dated 26.04.2023 which is said to have been issued by the defendants and which is said to have been received by the applicants has not been produced either by the applicants or by the defendants. However, Annexure-A2 objection sent by the applicants to the 1^st defendant and Annexure-A3 reply sent by the 1^st defendant to the applicants has been produced along with the SA.

¶19

Since the demand notice was not produced by the applicants, this Tribunal is not in a position to ascertain as to whether the name of the Officer who signed the notice is not mentioned in the notice. Be that as it may, a perusal of Annexure-A3 reply shows that demand notice was issued by the Authorized Officer, who is in the rank of Chief Manager of the secured creditor. The provisions of Sec.13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 does not mandate the mentioning of the name of the Officer in the demand notice. It does not mandate the mentioning of the name of the officer who issues the demand notice. Hence this Tribunal does not find any substance in the contention of the applicants that the demand notice does not provide the name of the officer signing the notice.

¶20

Page 2 of 7

¶21

SA No.537 of 2023

¶22

Annexure-A1 possession notice was issued by the defendants on 10.07.2023 for symbolically taking physical possession of the secured asset. The applicants have not raised any challenge or irregularity in respect of issuance of Annexure-A1 possession notice. However, the defendants have produced Annexure-B1 to B3 in order to show that possession notice was published in Kerala Kaumudi Kochi edition dated 15.07.2023 and in the Hindu Business Line Edition dated 15.07.2023 and it was affixed on the conspicuous part of the secured asset.

¶23

The applicants have contended in the SA that secured asset is agricultural land. No material has been produced by the applicants to substantiate their claim that secured asset is agricultural land.

¶24

The defendants approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Ernakulam and filed application and affidavit, Annexure-A4 under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. It appears that subsequently, the matter was made over to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam for disposal. Annexure-A5 Order dated 02.04.2024 came to be passed in MC No.993/23 appointing Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner issued Annexure-A6 notice dated 03.05.2024 to the applicants informing them that he would take physical possession of the secured asset within 14 days from the date of receipt of the notice.

¶25

The applicants have not averred in the SA as to whether the statutory requirements contemplated under Clauses (i) to (ix) to the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 were not complied with by the defendants in respect of filing of Annexure-A4 affidavit. However, a perusal of Annexure-A4 affidavit shows that the defendants have furnished all the details as required under Clauses (i) to (ix) to the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002. A perusal of Annexure-A5 order shows that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam passed order after having perused the contents of the affidavit and the documents filed in support of the affidavit and having satisfied over the same passed order in MC No.993/23 appointing Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. This Tribunal does not find any infirmity or procedural irregularity in the above order.

¶26

The applicants have failed to prove their case so as to get the reliefs sought for in the SA. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal holds that the applicants are not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in this SA.

¶27

Page 3 of 7

¶28

SA No.537 of 2023

¶29

Resultantly, S.A No.537 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 12^th day of September, 2025.

(Su. WILLYAHM)

PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 4 of 7

SA No.537 of 2023

Description

All that part and parcel of the immovable property, comprising land having an extent of 35.21 Ares, together with a residential building, including all the attendant improvements, constructions, and appurtenances thereon, situated within the jurisdiction of Sy.No.488/1/2/8 at Veloorkunnam Village, Muvattupuzha Taluk, Ernakulam District. The property stands in the name of Mr.Biju K.Antony, acquired vide Deed No.4902/2005 of SRO, Muvattupuzha, dated 05.09.2005.

¶38

Boundaries of the property

¶39

North : Property in the name of Puthenkottail Tom & Kottaram Kunnel Sibi. South : Property in the name of Orathil Puthenkura Sabu. East : Road West : Property in the name of Kalambadan Varkey George.

¶40

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶41

Page 5 of 7

¶42

SA No.537 of 2023

¶43

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

¶44

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	10.07.2023	True copy of possession notice intimating taking over of de jure possession of the secured assets is produced herewith and marked as AnnexureA1.	Annexure- A1
2.	…………	True copy of the objections filed by the applicants to the S.13 (2) notice sent by the applicants.	Annexure-A2
3.	20.06.2023	True copy of the reply sent by the bank to Annexure A2 objections sent by the applicants.	Annexure-A3
4.		A true copy of the application filed by the defendant under	Annexure-A4
5.	02.04.2024	A true copy of the order dated 02/04/2024 passed in MC 993/2023 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Special Court for case related to MPs/MLAs),Ernakulam.	Annexure- A5
6.	03.05.2024	A true copy of the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed in M.C No.993/2024 the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam (Special Court for case related to MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam.	Annexure-A6

¶45

Page 6 of 7

¶46

SA No.537 of 2023

¶47

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

¶48

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	15.07.2023	True copy of the Paper Publication published in Malayalam Daily “Kerala Koumudhi”,Kochi Edition.	Annexure-B1
2.	15.07.2023	True copy of the Paper Publication published in Hindu Business Line Edition.	Annexure-B2
3.	10.07.2023	True copy of the Affixture report.	Annexure-B3
4.	20.06.2023	True copy of Letter dated 20.06.2023.	Annexure-B4

¶49

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶50

Mj/

¶51

Page 7 of 7

Biju K Antony v. Catholic Syrian Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biju K Antony v. Catholic Syrian Bank Limited

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

Joji Esthaphan versus Axis Bank

Canara Bank versus Bharat Kumar Gupta

Indian Bank versus M/S Ujjwala Food Industries

Union Bank of India versus Smt Seema

Punjab National Bank versus Reshu Devi and Ors.

Idbi Bank versus Sh Avtar Singh