Dismissed

Shanis.P.P v. Bank of India

DRT12 Aug 2025SA/557/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's Securitization Application which sought to quash notices and measures initiated by the Bank of India. The Tribunal held the application non-maintainable as the applicant failed to challenge prior measures before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Application stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

Shanis.P.P versus Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 12^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶4

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

¶5

S.A No. 557 of 2023

¶6

Between

¶7

Shanis P.P., S/o. Abdul Rassaq, Ashique Manzil, Edachery Vayal, Kattali P.O., Kannur District–670 016.

¶8

--- Applicant

¶9

And

¶10

Bank of India, Kannur Branch, Caltex Junction, Near KSRTC Bus Station, Kannur – 670 002, Rep. by its Authorized Officer.

¶11

--- Defendant

¶12

This Securitization Application coming on 04.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Ms. Krishnapriya R., Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Mr. Augustine P., Counsel appearing for the defendant and upon hearing arguments of learned Counsels for all the parties and upon perusing the material on records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶13

SA No.557 of 2023

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This Securitisation Application was filed on 13.10.2021 seeking to set aside Annexure-A4 notice issued by the defendant bank and to declare that Annexure-A4 notice is arbitrary and not maintainable under the Act and Rules 2002 and set aside all the measures initiated by the defendant bank.

¶16

The applicant has admitted availment of housing loan of Rs.27.47 lakhs from the defendant bank in the year 2020. He has also admitted the creation of equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds pertaining to his residential property admeasuring an extent of 2.02 Ares comprised in Old Survey No.14/04 situated in Cheleri Village, Thaliparamba Taluk as the collateral security in favour of the defendant bank.

¶17

The applicant has averred in the S.A that the repayment of the loan was very prompt and regular. The above averment of the applicant is defeated by the defendant bank in its written statement contending that the applicant committed default in repayment of EMI of Rs.18,124/- the month of October, November and December 2022 and that the petitioner has admitted in Annexure A5 writ petition filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in W.P.C No.23803/2023 that due to some financial crisis, some of the EMI’s were defaulted and that the default committed will not come more than four months and that hence, his loan account was classified as Non-Performing Asset. It is also contended by the defendant bank that occasional payment of Rs.18 lakhs on 29.12.2022 and Rs.19,500/- on 27.01.2023 was not sufficient to keep the loan account as standard account in accordance with the RBI guidelines. A perusal of account statement of the applicant Annexure D4 and the above admission of the applicant fortifies the above contention of the defendant bank. Therefore, it is evident that since the applicant defaulted in repayment of the outstanding loan due, his loan account was classified as NonPerforming Asset.

¶18

Hence, Annexure A1 demand notice dated 01.03.2023 was issued to the applicant calling upon him to pay the outstanding loan due along with accrued interest and other charges and expenses within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of demand notice. The receipt of demand notice is admitted by the applicant. But he did not send any objection/representation for the demand notice to the defendant bank raising the contention that classification of loan account is not proper. This Tribunal does not find any procedural irregularity in respect of issuance of Annexure A1 demand notice.

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

SA No.557 of 2023

¶21

Since the applicant failed to respond to the terms of the demand notice, possession notice dated 23.05.2023 Annexure A3 was issued for symbolically taking possession of the secured asset. Defendant bank has produced copies of paper publications Annexures D2 and D3 in order to prove its contention that possession notice was published in the ‘Hindu’ Edition dated 28.05.2023 and ‘Madhyamam’ Edition dated 28.05.2023.

¶22

The order of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in its Judgment dated 27.07.2023 Annexure B6, directing the applicant to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.28,77572/- with future interest and costs to the defendant bank in 12 equated monthly instalments commencing from 27.08.2023 was not complied with by the applicant.

¶23

One of the reliefs sought for by the applicant in the SA is to declare Annexure A4 notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner as arbitrary and illegal and to set aside the same. The applicant has not produced copy of the application and affidavit filed by the defendant in CMP No. 2881/2023 under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery. He has also not produced copy of the order passed in CMP No. 2881/2023. The applicant has also not averred in the SA as to whether the defendant failed to comply with the statutory requirements contemplated under clause (i) to (ix) to the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. He has also not challenged the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery passed in CMP No. 2881/2023. Without challenging the aforesaid measures, the mere challenge of Annexure A4 notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner to the applicant informing him that he would take physical possession of the secured asset, is not maintainable.

¶24

The applicant has failed to prove his case so as to get the reliefs sought for in the SA. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal holds that the applicant is not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in this SA.

¶25

Resultantly, S.A No.557 of 2023 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12^th day of August, 2025.

¶27

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

al/

Page 3 of 4

SA No.557 of 2023

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

¶32

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	01.03.2023	True copy of the demand notice issued by the defendant bank.	Annexure-A1
2.	24.09.2023	True copy of the account statement issued by the defendant bank.	Annexure-A2
3.	23.05.2023	True copy of the possession notice issued by the defendant.	Annexure-A3
4.	08.09.2023	Original copy of the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner.	Annexure-A4

¶33

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

¶34

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	26.03.2021	Attested photocopy of sanction letter	Annexure-D1
2.	28.05.2023	Attested photocopy of paper publication of possession notice in the Hindu issued by the defendant bank.	Annexure-D2
3.	28.05.2023	Attested photocopy of paper publication of possession notice in the Madhyamam issued by the defendant bank.	Annexure-D3
4.	23.02.2024	Account statement of the applicant issued by the defendant bank	Annexure-D4

(Su. WILLYAHM)

PRESIDING OFFICER

al/

Page 4 of 4

Shanis.P.P v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanis.P.P v. Bank of India

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

Mr Tryambak So Ramrao Deshmukh Prop of Mahalaxmi Electrotech Services versus Nirmal Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Hdfc Bank versus Surinder Kumar

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Rajiv Kumar

Bank of Baroda versus Rakesh Singh

Canara Bank versus M/S Rajat Enterprises

Central Bank of India versus M/S P. Pure and Admire